Subject: [dhcwg] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 11:16:03 -0400

All,
     I have completed my AD evaluation of this draft and only have a
handful of comments/questions.  Please let me know if you have any
questions/concerns with these.

* Introduction

The last paragraph briefly describes the limited deployments/topologies
where this solution can be used.  Section 9.1 goes into more detail that
I think is quite useful and should appear earlier.  I would suggest
inserting a Applicability Statement section after the Intro that
highlights where this solution can be used.  That will frame the later
discussions of the protocol details.

* Section 3

I would drop the "MUST" from the definition of Shared IPv4 address.

* Section 4

I don't see the need for using 2119 keywords here, so I would suggest
s/MAY allocate the same IPv4 address/can allocate the same IPv4 address/

* Section 6

s/allocated and IPv4/allocated an IPv4/

* Section 6.1

The following text is confusing:

"client MUST NOT configure the received restricted IPv4 address on-link"

Can you clean up that statement?

* Section 7

I don't think all the MUSTs are needed in the 2nd paragraph.  Much of it
is trying to dictate implementation details.  I would suggest rewording
it as requirements for expected behavior.

* Section 8

I believe we have agreement on the text changes to clarify the use of
this option.

* Meta question

In section 6, there is text that describes how a client handles the case
where it sent OPTION_V4_PORTPARAMS but receives an unshared address in
response.  The text in the section 7 doesn't discuss when/how a server
can omit that option when the client sent it.  Is there a need to cover
that situation in more detail for the server?

Regards,
Brian