Subject: [MEXT] AD review of draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 14:55:16 +0300

I have reviewed this document.

I think it is in good shape and can move forward. I did have a couple of 
smaller issues that I hope will you address in the next couple of days 
(even if I have asked for a Last Call to be started).

There are references to RFC3775bis, stated as "... .as specified in 
RFC3775bis ...". This should use proper reference style and I also 
believe that the reference should be a normative one. (Or you could just 
refer to RFC 3775 and avoid any possible RFC Editor queue delays before 
3775bis is published.)

> peer-address   A non-link-local address from the MR egress interface
>                (e.g., home address) used to send packets between the
>                HA and the MR
>   

Is there ever a situation where something else than a home address would 
be used here? If a home address were not used, how would the home 
agent/DHCP server be able to make the necessary changes in the binding 
cache, for instance?

> The DHCPv6 messages exchanged between the MR and the HA MAY also be
> used for other DHCPv6 functions in addition to DHCPv6PD.  For
> example, the HA MAY assign global addresses to the MR and MAY pass
> other configuration information such as a list of available  DNS
> recursive name servers [RFC3646 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3646>] to the MR using the same DHCPv6
> messages as used for DHCPV6PD.
>   

The rest is fine, but I wonder if talking about global address 
assignment will be confusing here. The reader will start wondering if 
this means home address assignment, and as we know we do not have a full 
solution for that in terms of setting up both the address and the 
associated security state.

Jari

---

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 00:03:24 +0200

Hi Jari, all,

Thanks for the review, and apologies for my very late reply (I hope I
can catch up with all the e-mails about this soon, sorry if I reply to
something that has been already  discussed further).

See comments inline below...

> refer to RFC 3775 and avoid any possible RFC Editor queue delays before 

OK with normative. I'm also fine with referring to RFC3775 (no strong
opinion here).

> agent/DHCP server be able to make the necessary changes in the binding 

I think you are right and the HoA will be always used there. I'd suggest
then using the same text here (peer-address) that is used for the
link-address field in the same section.

> associated security state.

Fine. Then the following change would need to be done:

OLD:

   recursive name servers [RFC3646] to the MR using the same DHCPv6

NEW:

   The DHCPv6 messages exchanged between the MR and the HA MAY also be
   used for other DHCPv6 functions in addition to DHCPv6PD.  For
   example, the HA MAY  pass to the MR other configuration information
   such as a list of available DNS recursive name servers [RFC3646] to
   the MR using the same DHCPv6 messages as used for DHCPV6PD.

Thanks,

Carlos

> 
> Jari
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext

-- 
Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano     http://www.netcoms.net
GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA  4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67

---

From: Wassim Haddad <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 09:31:40 -0700

> link-address field in the same section.

=> Agree. In fact, mentioning explicitly the home address was made in an early 
version of the document following a comment about what is meant by peer-address.

Regards,

Wassim H.