Subject: [dhcwg] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-11: (with COMMENT)

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 22:42:01 -0700

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-11: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I was able to follow this document fairly well, except in this text:

   The single session and state machine allows the client to use the
   best configuration it is able to obtain from a single DHCP server
   during the configuration exchange.  Note, however, that the server
   may not be configured to deliver the entire configuration requested
   by the client.  In that case the client could continue to operate
   only using the configuration received, even if other servers can
   provide the missing configuration.  
   
I THINK I'm getting tripped up on "could continue to operate". Is this
intended to say "_will_ continue to operate only using the configuration
received"? "Could" says, to me, that the client might do that, or might
do something else that's not specified, that I saw. But I'm guessing.

Otherwise, for a document that's updating a bunch of RFCs, this draft was
very clear.