Subject: apps-team review of draft-ietf-hokey-ldn-discovery-06

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 12:44:36 +0100

I have been selected as the Applications Area Review Team reviewer for
this draft (for background on apps-review, please see
http://www.apps.ietf.org/content/applications-area-review-team).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-hokey-ldn-discovery
Title: The Local Domain Name DHCPv6 Option Reviewer: [your name here]
Review Date: February 2, 2011

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as proposed standard
and should be revised further.

This draft provides a means for DHCP clients to ascertain a domain name
for use with ERP [RFC5296].

Major Issues:

The option specified in this draft is to be used for the specific
purpose of ERP, and may not be appropriate for other uses, such as use
in a search list.  See Section 2 of RFC 5296.  Both the option name and
the text should make this clear.

While this is an Applications area review, the Security Considerations
section should still conform to the requirements of RFC-3552.

Minor Issues:

According to RFC 4282 it should be possible for an NAI realm to begin
with a digit.  Strictly speaking this is not allowed by RFC 1035, which
RFC 3315 refers to, which this document references.  As a matter of
correctness, I might simply reference RFC 4282 instead of RFC 3315.

This document also specifies a length limitation of 256 octets that does
not take into account issues raised by RFC 4282.  My recommendation
would be to either match or reference the text in RFC 4282.  FWIW, I do
not like the text in 4282 much myself, because it's rather wishy washy. 
Not sure how to fix that...

Nits:

IMHO no TOC required.

Section 5:

 DHPv6 server as a suboption of the Relay-Supplied Options option
 ^^^^^

s/DHPv6/DHCPv6/

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 19:12:20 +0100

Correcting something I wrote (thanks to Rob Elz):

> correctness, I might simply reference RFC 4282 instead of RFC 3315.

There is confusion here.  1035 has display guidelines relating to the
use of numbers.  RFC 4282 indicates makes the claim that the limitation
is stronger.  RFC 2181 clarifies this in Section 11.  Either reference,
therefore, would work, and the authors should ignore the above quoted
text.  In time it may be worth RFC3315bis referencing 1035 and 2181, and
RFC 4282 doing the same.

Eliot

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2011 10:55:36 +1100

> text.  In time it may be worth RFC3315bis referencing 1035 and 2181, and

RFC 1035 puts NO, NONE, NADA restrictions on labels other than length.
Hell even 0x00 is allowed as a octet in a label "\000" is how you
enter it.

The restrictions on hostnames comes from RFC 952 as is relaxed by RFC 1123.
The restrictions on mail domains comes from RFC 821 or 822 (I don't care to
look up which).  This may now have been relaxed when these were updated but
RFC 1123 failed to formally do so as it only updates RFC 952.

Mark
> Eliot
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email-masked]