Subject: RE: Announcement of WG last call for <draft-ietf-dhc-csr-05.txt>

From: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 07:17:19 -0500

The draft looks very good.

I just have a few minor nits that we might want to consider:

1) It never indicates the order of the IPv4 address (subnet numbers). While we all
assume it is network byte order, I think it would be wise to be explicit.

Perhaps simply changing:

"This encoding consists of one octet describing the width of the subnet
mask, followed by all the non-zero octets of the subnet number."

to:

"This encoding consists of one octet describing the width of the subnet
mask, followed by all the non-zero octets of the subnet number in network
byte order."

would do the trick?

2) The case on two section headings should be corrected:

Requirements to avoid sizing constraints --> Requirements to Avoid Sizing Constraints

DHCP Server administrator responsibilities --> DHCP Server Administrator Responsibilities

(Perhaps the RFC Editor will do this kind of fix up anyway?)

3) The sections are not numbered? Should they be (again, perhaps RFC editor will
do this)?

- Bernie Volz

-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Droms [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 10:00 PM
To: DHCPv4 discussion list
Subject: Announcement of WG last call for <draft-ietf-dhc-csr-05.txt>

This message announces a DHC WG last call for "The Classless Static Route 
Option for DHCP" <draft-ietf-dhc-csr-05.txt>.  At the WG meeting in London 
the WG agreed to go to WG last call for this draft immediately after IETF-51.

Please forward any comments you may have on this draft to 
[email-masked] by Friday, August 24.

- Ralph Droms

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 10:20:47 -0400

Are you saying that we should not go to RFC now because of these three
issues?

			       _MelloN_