headers
Thomas Narten | 6 Jan 2011 15:39
Picon
Favicon

Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-duid-uuid-02.txt

Hi all.

Now that the holiday break is over, some reviews of this document
would be appreciated. The WG won't advance it if there is only
silence...

It's a short document. Only about 3 pages of substance.

Thanks!

Thomas

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon <at> nominum.com> writes:

> We've been asked to do a last call on this draft; the authors
> believe that it's ready, and at least one reviewer believes so too.
> Please take this opportunity to review the draft if you have not
> already done so.  If you find problems, please discuss them here on
> the mailing list.  If you favor advancing the draft, please say so.
> If you do not want the draft to advance, please say so.  If we hear
> nothing but dead silence, the draft will not advance.

> I will be offline from 12/30/10 to 1/10/10, so I will make some
> determination as to the consensus on this draft when I get back
> online on the 10th.

> Thanks!

> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Stephen Jacob | 6 Jan 2011 17:55

Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-duid-uuid-02.txt

The document looks good.

My only very, very minor concerns are:

 - A tiny nit! "DHCP protocol" seems repetetive

 - I have a question in my mind as to whether the security
   considerations section is even necessary given that there
   is no new additional security issue.  That same issue
   applies to any DUID, not just DUID-UUID.

Even with the above, I approve.  +1

Regards,
Stephen

On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 03:32:34PM -0500, Ted Lemon wrote:
> We've been asked to do a last call on this draft; the authors believe that it's ready, and at least one
reviewer believes so too.   Please take this opportunity to review the draft if you have not already done so.  
If you find problems, please discuss them here on the mailing list.   If you favor advancing the draft,
please say so.   If you do not want the draft to advance, please say so.   If we hear nothing but dead silence, the
draft will not advance.
> 
> I will be offline from 12/30/10 to 1/10/10, so I will make some determination as to the consensus on this
draft when I get back online on the 10th.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Tom Taylor | 6 Jan 2011 19:40

Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-duid-uuid-02.txt

I support advancing this draft.

On 06/01/2011 9:39 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> Now that the holiday break is over, some reviews of this document
> would be appreciated. The WG won't advance it if there is only
> silence...
>
> It's a short document. Only about 3 pages of substance.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Thomas
>
> Ted Lemon<Ted.Lemon <at> nominum.com>  writes:
>
>> We've been asked to do a last call on this draft; the authors
>> believe that it's ready, and at least one reviewer believes so too.
>> Please take this opportunity to review the draft if you have not
>> already done so.  If you find problems, please discuss them here on
>> the mailing list.  If you favor advancing the draft, please say so.
>> If you do not want the draft to advance, please say so.  If we hear
>> nothing but dead silence, the draft will not advance.
>
>> I will be offline from 12/30/10 to 1/10/10, so I will make some
>> determination as to the consensus on this draft when I get back
>> online on the 10th.
>
>> Thanks!
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Zimmer, Vincent | 6 Jan 2011 19:49
Picon
Favicon

Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-duid-uuid-02.txt

This will help in mapping IPV4 network boot bare-metal scenarios that formerly used option 97 of DHCP4 for
machine identifier to IPV6.

Given the gap that this addresses and completeness of document, I support advancing this draft.

-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tom Taylor
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 10:41 AM
To: Thomas Narten
Cc: dhcwg <at> ietf.org WG
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-duid-uuid-02.txt

I support advancing this draft.

On 06/01/2011 9:39 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> Now that the holiday break is over, some reviews of this document
> would be appreciated. The WG won't advance it if there is only
> silence...
>
> It's a short document. Only about 3 pages of substance.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Thomas
>
> Ted Lemon<Ted.Lemon <at> nominum.com>  writes:
>
>> We've been asked to do a last call on this draft; the authors
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Thomas Huth | 7 Jan 2011 11:26
Picon
Favicon

Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-duid-uuid-02.txt

Stephen Jacob <Stephen.Jacob <at> nominum.com> wrote on 06/01/2011 17:55:47:

>  - I have a question in my mind as to whether the security
>    considerations section is even necessary given that there
>    is no new additional security issue.  That same issue
>    applies to any DUID, not just DUID-UUID.

Since all new RFCs must have a security consideration section nowadays,
I think it is ok to have this remark there. So I would opt for keeping
this sentence.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards,
   Thomas Huth

    IBM Deutschland                 Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats:        
    Research & Development GmbH     Martin Jetter                          
    Schönaicher Str. 220            Geschäftsführung: Dirk Wittkopp        
    71032 Böblingen                 Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen       
    Tel.: +49-7031-16-2183          Registergericht: Amtsgericht           
                                    Stuttgart, HRB 243294
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Thomas Huth | 7 Jan 2011 12:09
Picon
Favicon

Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-duid-uuid-02.txt

Thomas Narten <narten <at> us.ibm.com> wrote on 06/01/2011 15:39:42:
>
> Now that the holiday break is over, some reviews of this document
> would be appreciated. The WG won't advance it if there is only
> silence...

I now read through the document, and it sounds good to me, so I support
advancing this draft.

I just got some minor comments:

1) You're neither referencing RFC 2119 nor using the keywords from that
RFC. However, I also didn't see a lot of sentences in your document where
you need it really urgently, so you might get away without it. Anyway,
please consider using it, e.g. in the following sentences:

- "DHCP UUIDs should be persistant across system restarts ..."

- "Implementations of this specification using DUID-UUID must select a UUID
that is persistent across system restart..."

2) You might want to add a sentence like this in the beginning of your
document, to make clear where the definitions come from:

Terminology specific to IPv6 and DHCPv6 are used in the same way as is
defined in the "Terminology" sections of [RFC3315].

3) In the "Background" section, you explain the previous DUIDs again:

"Three DUIDs types have been defined previously:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Thomas Narten | 7 Jan 2011 14:58
Picon
Favicon

Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-duid-uuid-02.txt

Hi Thomas.

Thomas Huth <THUTH <at> de.ibm.com> writes:

> 1) You're neither referencing RFC 2119 nor using the keywords from that
> RFC. However, I also didn't see a lot of sentences in your document where
> you need it really urgently, so you might get away without it. Anyway,
> please consider using it, e.g. in the following sentences:

> - "DHCP UUIDs should be persistant across system restarts ..."

> - "Implementations of this specification using DUID-UUID must select a UUID
> that is persistent across system restart..."

Personally, I prefer not using 2119 language unless there is a
compelling need. I.e., to make very clear that not doing something is
a violation of the spec.  I don't see a strong need in this
document. But if others think this is necessary, I'll make the change.

> 2) You might want to add a sentence like this in the beginning of your
> document, to make clear where the definitions come from:

> Terminology specific to IPv6 and DHCPv6 are used in the same way as is
> defined in the "Terminology" sections of [RFC3315].

Will do.

> 3) In the "Background" section, you explain the previous DUIDs again:

> "Three DUIDs types have been defined previously:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Stephen Jacob | 7 Jan 2011 19:47

Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-duid-uuid-02.txt

On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 11:26:42AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> Stephen Jacob <Stephen.Jacob <at> nominum.com> wrote on 06/01/2011 17:55:47:
> 
> >  - I have a question in my mind as to whether the security
> >    considerations section is even necessary given that there
> >    is no new additional security issue.  That same issue
> >    applies to any DUID, not just DUID-UUID.
> 
> Since all new RFCs must have a security consideration section nowadays,
> I think it is ok to have this remark there. So I would opt for keeping
> this sentence.

Oh, well, that is certainly a good reason. :)

Would it be appropriate to add a sentence on to the end saying "This
security concern is not new with DUID-UUID but is a concern with
all DUID types." or something?

Regards,
Stephen
--

-- 
 Stephen Jacob | Stephen.Jacob <at> nominum.com | +1 650 381 6051
 Nominum, Inc. |  http://www.nominum.com/  | +1 650 381 6000
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
ravi kumar | 9 Jan 2011 14:27
Picon

Fwd: Dhcp client behavior in regard to Domain searchlist

Incase if there are two domain lists received from Dhcpv4 and Dhcpv6 servers respectively, what should be the final list of domain suffixes to be used for resolution.What should the precedence in choosing the list (V4 first and V6 second etc ), incase if combined list is used for resolution.
 
regards
Ravi
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: ravi kumar <ravikumar.lrk <at> gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 4:07 PM
Subject: Dhcp client behavior in regard to Domain searchlist
To: dhcp-users <at> isc.org, dhcp-users <at> lists.isc.org


Incase if Domain searchlist is received via Dhcpv4 and Dhcpv6 servers, through options 119 and 24, I would like to know the behavior of Linux client. Are both search lists passed to DNS for DNS resolution ? Is there any precedence in choosing the order of lists : V4 first and V6 second etc ?
 
regards
Ravi

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Bernie Volz (volz | 10 Jan 2011 23:05
Picon
Favicon

Re: Fwd: Dhcp client behavior in regard to Domain searchlist

You might want to look at http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dhc-dual-stack-merge-01.txt.

 

I think this work died?

 

-          Bernie

 

From: dhcwg-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of ravi kumar
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2011 8:28 AM
To: DHC WG
Subject: [dhcwg] Fwd: Dhcp client behavior in regard to Domain searchlist

 

Incase if there are two domain lists received from Dhcpv4 and Dhcpv6 servers respectively, what should be the final list of domain suffixes to be used for resolution.What should the precedence in choosing the list (V4 first and V6 second etc ), incase if combined list is used for resolution.

 

regards

Ravi

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: ravi kumar <ravikumar.lrk <at> gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 4:07 PM
Subject: Dhcp client behavior in regard to Domain searchlist
To: dhcp-users <at> isc.org, dhcp-users <at> lists.isc.org

Incase if Domain searchlist is received via Dhcpv4 and Dhcpv6 servers, through options 119 and 24, I would like to know the behavior of Linux client. Are both search lists passed to DNS for DNS resolution ? Is there any precedence in choosing the order of lists : V4 first and V6 second etc ?

 

regards

Ravi

 

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |

Gmane