Subject: [dhcwg] RAAN & SRSN drafts

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 11:27:13 +0700

Is there some reason of which I am unaware that these two documents should
not be combined?

~gwz

At one time in the US, in the mid-nineteenth century, working for wage labor
was considered not very different from chattel slavery...anyone who thinks
it's legitimate to be a wage laborer is internalizing oppression in a way
which would have seemed intolerable to people in the mills 150 years ago.
  -- Noam Chomsky, "Propaganda & the Public Mind"

---

From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:22:54 -0400

I do think they should be. Ralph and I just re-spun the ones that had
expired a while back without making any major changes.

While I like the idea of avoiding layer violations which was, at least
in my mind, the strongest motivation for RAAN (and thus SRSN), I'm not
so sure that this now is a strong enough argument to proceed with
RAAN/SRSN because there are already DHCPv6 relay agents that do the
layer violations as they had no choice.

SRSN might be useful for more than just RAAN (as it provides the
'ordering' data that is missing from DHCPv6 response flows over UDP from
the server). But we don't have any applications at present except for
RAAN.

- Bernie 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Glen Zorn
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 12:27 AM
To: 'Dhcwg WG'
Subject: [dhcwg] RAAN & SRSN drafts

Is there some reason of which I am unaware that these two documents
should
not be combined?

~gwz

At one time in the US, in the mid-nineteenth century, working for wage
labor
was considered not very different from chattel slavery...anyone who
thinks
it's legitimate to be a wage laborer is internalizing oppression in a
way
which would have seemed intolerable to people in the mills 150 years
ago.
  -- Noam Chomsky, "Propaganda & the Public Mind"

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:49:50 +0700

> layer violations as they had no choice.

Be that as it may, it's nice to have a clean way to do things.

> the server). 

True, but other documents can still reference the definition, right?  That
idea was why I didn't suggest pushing everything into one option...

...

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:18:01 -0400

Glen - I think Bernie has it right: the options are in two drafts as a  
matter of style.  Keeping the SRSN option in a separate doc keeps it  
easier to find, read and understand.  SRSN could certainly be  
referenced as part of a doc that defines RAAN.

Is there a particular advantage to putting the options in one doc?

- Ralph

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:06:06 +0900

Ralph Droms [mailto:[email-masked]] writes:

> easier to find, read and understand.  

I'm not sure how: all of the text could remain the same -- what we're really
talking about is adding a section to a draft.  Advancing two dependent
drafts simultaneously is always harder than advancing one...

> SRSN could certainly be

It already is, in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-agentopt-delegate-02:

9.  Reordering received DHCP messages

   The relay agent MUST use the Server Reply Sequence Number (SRSN)
   option [4] to detect and discard RAAN options contained in DHCP
   messages that are received out of order.

That's why I made the suggestion: if SRSN MUST be used with RAAN & there
aren't any other defined (only potential) uses for the SRSN option, why not
keep them together in one place?
> Is there a particular advantage to putting the options in one doc?

Reducing 1) the number of documents to advance & 2) keeping dependent
options in one place.