Subject: [dhcwg] My comments for draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-05

From: Michayla Newcombe <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 20:05:48 -0400

Hi all,

I read and reviewed this document. All my comments are minor edits. I
support this draft moving forward.

Best Regards,
Michayla

Overall document:

Keywords from RFC 2119 are not consistent throughout the document. For
example, I saw quite a few “must”s that were not capitalized.

i.e.

 “The motivation for having more than one type of DUID is that the DUID
  must be globally unique, and must also be easy to generate”.

...

 The IAID uniquely identifies the IA and must be chosen to be unique
  among the IAIDs for that IA type on the client.

Not all RFC references are linked.

Inconsistent use of “Unique Identifier”. “Unique IDentifier” is used is
some references.

Section 12.3

The lifetime of the assigned temporary address is set in the IA Address
Option (see Section 20.6) with in the IA_TA option.

Small typo: “...*within* the IA_TA option”.

Section 17.1.10.1
In other words, client should behave as if it never received this option at
all and return to whatever default state regarding that configuration
information was.

Small typo: “In other words, the client…”

Section 17.2
In most reply messages, the server includes options containing
configuration information for the client.
Small typo: “In most Reply messages...”

Section 17.2.1
Sending this option back to the client may useful using server selection
process.

Small typo: “Sending this option back to the client may be useful...”

Section 17.2.2

The server MAY assign different addresses and/or delegated prefixes to an
IA than included in the IA within the Request message sent by the client.

This reads a little confusing maybe... “The server MAY assign different
addresses and/or delegated prefixes to an IA than those included within the
IA of the client’s Request message”.

Section 18.1.1
If not addresses of other scopes are available the relay agent may fill in
the link-address field with a link-local address from the interface the
original message was received on.

Small typo: “If no addresses…”

Section 20.7
Other top-level Options MUST appear in the Option Request option or the
will not be sent by the server.

Only container options MUST appear in the Option Request, options
encapsulated in the container MUST NOT by in the Option Request, see
[RFC7598] as an example of container options.
Small typo: “Other top-level Options MUST appear in the Option Request
option or will not be sent…options encapsulated in the container MUST NOT be
in the Option Request, see [RFC7598] as an example of container options.”

-- 
Michayla Newcombe
UNH InterOperability Lab (UNH-IOL)
IPv6 Operations Manager
P: 603-862-3941
www.iol.unh.edu

Now offering testing for SDN applications and controllers in our SDN switch
test bed. Learn more today http://bit.ly/SDN_IOLPR