Re: Mail regarding draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notification
Jen Linkova <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.dhc |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAFU7BASSbOnVnYuKPMQU_M6vVRD67rDX479m72TqJYEfpYvYmQ@mail.gmail.com> |
Hi Aditi, Sorry, I missed your comments and didn't address them in the last version submitted on Jan 16. The text will be added to the next version. On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 3:31 AM Aditi Patange <[email protected]> wrote: > I am Aditi Patange from Microsoft. I recently came across ‘Registering Self-generated IPv6 Addresses using DHCPv6’ draft and I would like to surface some questions on behalf of the Windows DHCP client team. > Nitpick – There is a typing error in Section 4.2.1 Bullet 5 “If there is already a binding between the registered address and another another client, the server SHOULD log the fact and update the binding.” The word “another” is duplicated. 😊 Thanks, will fix it in the next version. > Section 4.3 doesn’t clarify client behavior if the ADDR-REG-REPLY is discarded. Is the client expected to retransmit ADDR-REG-INFORM until an acceptable ADDR-REG-REPLY is received? I believe Section 4.5 addresses that: "To reduce the effects of packet loss on registration, the client SHOULD retransmit the registration message. Retransmissions SHOULD follow the standard retransmission logic specified by section 15 of [RFC8415]....If an ADDR-REG-REPLY message is received for the address being registered, the client MUST stop retransmission." So the client retransmits using RFC8415 logic (MRC = 3, so 3 retransmissions), but stops if the reply is received before 3 retransmissions are sent. Do you think the text is unclear? > Section 4.5 “However, the client cannot rely on the server acknowledging receipt of the registration message, because the server might not support address registration.” > > I am confused by this statement. The client started the registration process because the server responded with OPTION_ADDR_REG_ENABLE indicating that it supports this address registration mechanism. Can you please clarify this statement in the draft? Oh sorry, this is a leftover from the previous version, where the client wasn't actively discovering the server-side support. Will remove the text. -- Cheers, Jen Linkova _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg