Hi, Ralph,
On 2/18/2012 4:39 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:
Joe, Kim...
On Feb 17, 2012, at 5:47 PM 2/17/12, Joe Touch wrote:
Hi, Kim,
First, thank you for your detailed response to my quite lengthy review.
Some further clarifications and confirmations appear below.
Joe
On 2/17/2012 12:09 PM, Kim Kinnear wrote:
Joe,
Thank you for your review.
My responses are indented, below...
On Feb 13, 2012, at 5:00 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
Hi, all,
I've reviewed this document as part of the transport area
directorate's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These
comments were written primarily for the transport area directors,
but are copied to the document's authors for their information and
to allow them to address any issues raised. The authors should
consider this review together with any other last-call comments
they receive. Please always CC tsv-dir(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org if you reply to or
forward this review.
This request was received Feb. 2, 2012.
This document describes an extension to DHCPv4 for the bulk query
andtransfer of current lease status over TCP.
The following transport issues were noted, and are significant:
UPDATES- The document updates DHCP with support for TCP, and as
suchthis document seems like it should UPDATE RFC2131
While this document clearly builds on RFC 2131, it
doesn't actually change anything that anyone is doing
that is currently based on RFC 2131. My understanding of
"updates" is that, in order to understand the first RFC
(in this case, RFC 2131), you need to read all of the
RFC's that "update" it. That isn't the case here -- you
can be very happy reading and implementing DHCPv4 by
reading RFC 2131 and never have to know that DHCPv4 Bulk
Leasequery exists. In general, in the DHC WG, we seem to
set a pretty high bar for what "udpates" another RFC. I
don't see that this document has met those requirements.
But this isn't really my call. I'll let Ralph Droms and
the DHC WG chairs decide on this one, and I'll do
whatever they tell me to do.
Agreed. FWIW, my "bar" for that is whether implementing DHCPv4 as
per RFC 2131 is changed by this doc. If DHCP fundamentally starts
requiring TCP port support, then this doc then changes the spec as
described in 2131 IMO.
Joe - I don't see that this document fundamentally requires TCP port
support for DHCP operation as described in RFC 2131. This document
describes a protocol that is closely related to but independent of RFC
2131, and a server based on RFC 2131 can perform all the DHCP functions
in RFC 2131 without considering this document. So, I can see your point
but I disagree that this document updates RFC 2131.
Fair enough, but then I'll put on my IANA hat and note that this then is
no longer the complementary TCP protocol to DHCP. By your argument, it's
a new service, and should have a separate TCP port and service name.
Joe
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf