> -----Original Message----- > From: Sheng Jiang > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 2:45 PM > To: Liubing (Leo); ipv6@ietf.org > Cc: re...@ietf.org > Subject: RE: SLAAC/DHCPv6 addr-conf operational gaps > > Hi, Bing, > > It is better to at least mention the direction of next step - clearly > redefine the > flag correspondent host behavior in standards.
[Bing] Agree. Thanks for your clarification. > > A couple of more detailed comments: you have used word "gap" several > times, while you did not clear describe what gap it is. You have only > described issues/problems. Gaps should be something that issue solved if > you could fill them. Subsections of Section 3 are problem scenarios. But your > subsection titles do not clear express the meaning. [Bing] OK, I can make it more clear in the next version or in the new solution draft. Thanks for your careful review. B.R. Bing > > Cheers, > > Sheng > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Liubing (Leo) > >Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 2:17 PM > >To: Sheng Jiang; ipv6@ietf.org > >Cc: re...@ietf.org > >Subject: RE: SLAAC/DHCPv6 addr-conf operational gaps > > > >Hi, Sheng > > > >Thanks for your comments. > >This is the first step, to see if there is consensus of agreeing the problems > >should be fixed in current standard. If so, we'll submit a draft to fix the > >ambiguous issue. > > > >B.R. > >Bing > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Sheng Jiang > >> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:37 AM > >> To: Liubing (Leo); ipv6@ietf.org > >> Cc: re...@ietf.org > >> Subject: RE: SLAAC/DHCPv6 addr-conf operational gaps > >> > >> This has been a historic issue. Although there was discussions several > times, > >> the specification still remain ambiguous. The differences in OS > >> implementations are good proof that we need to do something in IETF. > >> > >> This document has well described the current standard status and reality > >> operational issues. However, for me, this document fails to suggest what > >we > >> may do to fix this issue, neither in the gap section or as conclusion. It > >> is > >clear > >> that part of RFC4862 needs to be updated to make the configuration > >> behavior clear and consistent. For that, this document fails to give a > feasible > >> proposal. Maybe, the authors has saved that for another follow up > standard > >> track document. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> Sheng > >> > >> >-----Original Message----- > >> >From: renum-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:renum-boun...@ietf.org] On > >> Behalf > >> >Of Liubing (Leo) > >> >Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 3:14 PM > >> >To: ipv6@ietf.org; v6...@ietf.org > >> >Cc: re...@ietf.org > >> >Subject: [renum] SLAAC/DHCPv6 addr-conf operational gaps > >> > > >> >Hi, 6man & v6ops > >> > > >> >We submitted a new draft to discuss the SLAAC/DHCPv6 interaction > gaps. > >> > > >> >As we know there are several flags in RA messages regarding with the > host > >> >configuration behavior, which are A (Autonomous) flag, M (Managed) > flag, > >> >and O (Otherconfig) flag. > >> >For some reason, the host behavior of interpreting the flags is > ambiguous > >in > >> >the standard (mainly RFC4862). I presented a draft discussing M flag > >> behavior > >> >in 6man @ietf84, and there were some feedbacks arguing the same > issue. > >> >This draft analyzed all the three flags, and provided test result of > >> >current > >> >implementations, it showed the behavior of different mainstream > desktop > >> >OSes have varied. The ambiguous and variation might cause operational > >> >problems, such as renumbering (used to discuss in 6renum WG and been > >> >documented in the WG drafts), cold start problem, and management > >> >gaps .etc. > >> > > >> >Your review and comments would be appreciated very much. > >> > > >> >All the best, > >> >Bing > >> > > >> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >> From: internet-dra...@ietf.org [mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org] > >> >> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 5:52 PM > >> >> To: Liubing (Leo) > >> >> Cc: rbon...@juniper.net > >> >> Subject: New Version Notification for > >> >> draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem-01.txt > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> A new version of I-D, draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem-01.txt > >> >> has been successfully submitted by Bing Liu and posted to the > >> >> IETF repository. > >> >> > >> >> Filename: draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem > >> >> Revision: 01 > >> >> Title: DHCPv6/SLAAC Address Configuration Interaction > >Problem > >> >> Statement > >> >> Creation date: 2013-02-25 > >> >> Group: Individual Submission > >> >> Number of pages: 12 > >> >> URL: > >> >> > >> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem- > >> >> 01.txt > >> >> Status: > >> >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem > >> >> Htmlized: > >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem-01 > >> >> Diff: > >> >> > >> > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem-01 > >> >> > >> >> Abstract: > >> >> This document analyzes the host behavior of DHCPv6/SLAAC > >> interaction > >> >> issue. It reviews the standard definition of the host behaviors and > >> >> provides the test results of current mainstream implementations. > >> Some > >> >> potential operational gaps of the interaction are also described. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> The IETF Secretariat > >> > > >> >_______________________________________________ > >> >renum mailing list > >> >re...@ietf.org > >> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/renum -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------