-----Message d'origine-----
De : Bernie Volz (volz) [mailto:volz(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com] Envoyé : samedi
27
avril 2013 06:24 À : Robert Sparks; BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN Cc :
dhcwg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; General Area Review Team;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; draft-ietf-
dhc-triggered-reconfigure(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org
Objet : RE: [dhcwg] RE : Gen-art review: draft-ietf-dhc-triggered-
reconfigure-05
Robert:
The reason to allow this is that otherwise client A will be
unnecessarily reconfigured many times. (It is also possible that a
client might Renew on its own just as this is happening and thus it
can also be removed from the
Reconfigure.)
I think the text should be cleaned up to indicate that allowing
removal of already reconfigured clients is recommended (to prevent
unnecessary
reconfigures) when retransmitting the Reconfigure-Request.
Note that if clients are added, that is not a retransmission but
requires a "new" message (new XID).
- Bernie
-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:dhcwg-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On
Behalf Of Robert Sparks
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 12:19 PM
To: mohamed(_dot_)boucadair(_at_)orange(_dot_)com
Cc: dhcwg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; General Area Review Team;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
draft-ietf- dhc-triggered-reconfigure(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] RE : Gen-art review: draft-ietf-dhc-triggered-
reconfigure-05
On 4/26/13 10:58 AM, mohamed(_dot_)boucadair(_at_)orange(_dot_)com wrote:
Dear Robert,
Thank you for the review.
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
________________________________________
De : dhcwg-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [dhcwg-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]
de la part de
Robert Sparks [rjsparks(_at_)nostrum(_dot_)com] Date d'envoi : vendredi 26
avril
2013 17:42 À : dhcwg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; General
Area Review
Team; draft-ietf-dhc-triggered-reconfigure(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org
Objet : [dhcwg] Gen-art review:
draft-ietf-dhc-triggered-reconfigure-05
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq><http://wiki
.tools .ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call
comments you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-dhc-triggered-reconfigure-05
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: April 26, 2013
IETF LC End Date: May 6, 2013
IESG Telechat date: May 16, 2013
Summary: This draft is on the right track but has open issues,
described
in
the review.
Major issues:
Overall, this document is solid, but I think there is a bug in
section
6.3.
I could be wrong, but If I'm right, this paragraph:
When retransmission is required, the relay may decide to correct the
content of RECONFIGURE-REQUEST message it issues (e.g., update the
Client Identifier list). This decision is local to the relay (e.g.,
it may be based on observed events such as one or more clients were
reconfigured on their own).
introduces a race-condition that could lead to an erroneous state.
If a
relay's first message included client A, then the retransmission
included clients A and B, but that retransmission crosses with a
success RECONFIGURE-REPLY to the request that only included client A,
the relay will think it succeeded in asking A and B to be reconfigured.
Med: This example does not apply for that text.
Really? What text constrains how you change what's in the retransmission?
In fact, the example should be the other way around. Perhaps,
this can
be made clearer if we change "(e.g., update the Client Identifier
list)" to "(e.g., remove a client from the Client Identifier list)".
If I understand you correctly, you need more than just changing a
parenthetical e.g.. I think you're saying that you are constraining
the message changes to be such that if anything earlier in the
retransmission sequence succeeded, the request in the retransmission
would also have succeeded. But why do you need that much complexity?
Do you have it already with any other request?
Minor issues:
This sentence:
Furthermore, means to recover state in failure events must be
supported,
but are not discussed in this document.
places a requirement on a relay (even though it's not using a 2119 MUST).
Is there some other document that defines this requirement that you
can reference?
Med: I'm not aware of any; but if there is one we can cite it.
If not, the requirement should be discussed in this document.
Alternatively, you could change the sentence to talk about the
consequences of not having a proprietary means for recovering state.
Med: Will consider that option if you think this is really needed.
Nits/editorial comments:
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg