search

dhcwg / rfc8415bis

RFC8415bis
The Unlicense
0 stars 1 forks source link

Implementation report #6

Closed tomaszmrugalski closed 1 year ago

tomaszmrugalski commented 1 year ago

This PR adds an implementation report. This is as far as I could push it before ran out of time. Many of the RFC7942 requests are fulfilled, but some aren't.

Please review.

tomaszmrugalski commented 1 year ago

A question to whoever reviews this: Do we want to mention IPv6 ready phase-2/DHCPv6 tests? It's old (2012), but there's a bunch of extra implementations that are not mentioned above?

https://www.ipv6ready.org/db/index.php/public/search/?l=&c=&ds=&de=&pc=&ap=2&oem=&etc=D&fw=&vn=&do=1&o=6

tomaszmrugalski commented 1 year ago

@bevolz, I think I addressed all your comments from 2 days ago. Thanks for reviewing!

bevolz commented 1 year ago

Thanks!Nice to have added sources and good not to make these normal informational “references” as that section will be removed.- Bernie (from iPad)On Jul 9, 2023, at 6:02 PM, Tomek Mrugalski @.***> wrote: @bevolz, I think I addressed all your comments from 2 days ago. Thanks for reviewing!

—Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

bevolz commented 1 year ago

Tim might have some comments about this.Personally, I think it is useful but to caution in that these data are pre-RFC8415 but show the breadth of implementations and testing for DHCPv6 and the real world experience that provided input to the changes to the protocol for RFC8415 and this latest work (bis).- Bernie (from iPad)On Jul 9, 2023, at 6:02 PM, Tomek Mrugalski @.***> wrote: A question to whoever reviews this: Do we want to mention IPv6 ready phase-2/DHCPv6 tests? It's old (2012), but there's a bunch of extra implementations that are not mentioned above? https://www.ipv6ready.org/db/index.php/public/search/?l=&c=&ds=&de=&pc=&ap=2&oem=&etc=D&fw=&vn=&do=1&o=6

—Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>

twintersunh commented 1 year ago

@tomaszmrugalski @bevolz The IPv6 Ready Logo is 3315, and not 8415 devices so don't reference that. USGv6 has been slow to create the testing content for DHCPv6 so there isn't anything to reference there or at the UNH-IOL.

bevolz commented 1 year ago

I still think it is relevant as 8415 mostly consolidated the DHCPv6 standards and addressed removing some unused parts … there were a few new requirements (such as 7550) but these in themselves don’t cause interoperability issues if not implemented.How about something like:While the original IPv6 Ready Logo testing involved the original DHCPv6 specifications (primarily RFC3315, RFC3633), the large number of tested and certified implementations supports the breadth and depth of DHCPv6 impementations available and deployed in the marketplace over the years that confirm the protocol specifications are up to Internet Standard. See https://www.ipv6ready.org/db/index.php/public/search/?l=&c=&ds=&de=&pc=&ap=2&oem=&etc=D&fw=&vn=&do=1&o=6.- Bernie (from iPad)On Jul 10, 2023, at 9:44 AM, Timothy Winters @.***> wrote: @tomaszmrugalski @bevolz The IPv6 Ready Logo is 3315, and not 8415 devices so don't reference that. USGv6 has been slow to create the testing content for DHCPv6 so there isn't anything to reference there or at the UNH-IOL.

—Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

tomaszmrugalski commented 1 year ago

Bernie gave go-ahead over e-mail. Merging!