Re: TSVDIR review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-bulk-leasequery

> 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@... 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.