Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04 - respond by Jan. 31

From: Tomek Mrugalski <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 22:35:24 +0100

On 17.01.2014, 22:50, Tomek Mrugalski wrote:
> Authors and chairs feel that draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04
> (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration/) is
> ready for WGLC. Please post your comment by end of January.

I support moving forward with this document, but the comments raised
during this WGLC should be addressed.

I have a handful of mostly editorial comments:

Section 1.2 'Host Client Relay' is abbreviated as HCRA. Either use HCR
or 'Host Client Relay Agent'.

"UDPv6 and IPv6" => "UDP and IPv6".

"This interface may be directly on the server...". There's a verb
missing somewhere here (implemented? provided? exposed?)

Section 1.5. The (unfortunately) message names have changed. They are no
longer called BOOTREQUESTV6 and BOOTREPLYV6. (That may have given
an absurd idea to some people to run BOOTP in IPv6 only networks.
Yikes!). The new names are DHCPV4-QUERY and DHCPV4-RESPONSE. The same is
true for the OPTION_BOOTP_MSG => OPTION_DHCPV4_MSG. That applies to the
whole text.

Typo in the last line of the third paragraph (BOOTPRPLYV6), but it
doesn't matter as the name will be replaced with DHCPV4-RESPONSE.

Section 1.3 says that it is not known which or how many DHCPv4 options
would have to be reimplemented in DHCPv6. Yet section 3.2.1 mentions
that implementations exist. Are you sure that's not a copy paste error?
Are there implementations that reimplemented DHCPv4 options one by one
as DHCPv6 options?

Is section 3.4 still necessary? That's essentially native DHCPv4 that is
described in section 5, right?

Section 7.4: reference to section 10 of RFC3315 seems wrong. Section 10
is a nice section, but it explains basic IA concepts and there's nothing
about security there. Perhaps you meant section 11 of
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6?

Tomek

p.s.
Sorry for the delay with wrapping up this WGLC. Will get to it soon.

---

From: Tomek Mrugalski <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 21:43:43 +0100

> I have a handful of mostly editorial comments:
I forgot about one procedural comment.

Please remove requirements language ("The key words "MUST", "MUST
NOT"...) and reference to RFC2119. The normative language is appropriate
only for standards track documents.

It is ok to have only informative references.

Tomek