Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9527 <draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-24> for your review

[Daniel Migault <[e-mail]>]

Hi, 

Thank you for reviewing the document. There is one remaining question I would like to ask CCed people. 

I am wondering what are the guidance in using DHCP Options versus DHCPv6 option.  I have the impression 8415 uses DHCP Options while 7227 uses "DHCPv6 option.

Yours, 
Daniel

________________________________________
From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2023 12:59 AM
To: Daniel Migault; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9527 <draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-24> for your review

Authors,

While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.

1) <!--[rfced] Should "Home Network" be updated to "Homenet" in the
document title to more closely match the terminology used in the
Abstract and Introduction? Please let us know your preference.

Original:
   DHCPv6 Options for Home Network Naming Authority

Perhaps:
   DHCPv6 Options for the Homenet Naming Authority
-->
<mglt>
This seems appropriated and more consistent.
<mglt>


2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->

<mglt>
I think this is correct, maybe DNS
</mglt>

3) <!--[rfced] Please clarify "proceed to the configuration". Is the intended
meaning that the HNA can proceed to "use", "set", or "identify" the
appropriate configuration?

Original:
   This document defines DHCPv6 options so a Homenet Naming Authority
   (HNA) can automatically proceed to the appropriate configuration and
   outsource the authoritative naming service for the home network.

Perhaps:
   This document defines DHCPv6 options so that a Homenet Naming Authority
   (HNA) can automatically use the appropriate configuration and
   outsource the authoritative naming service for the home network.
-->

<mglt>
I think that "set" woudl be more appropriated, so the change woudl be more:

NEW:
   This document defines DHCPv6 options so that a Homenet Naming Authority
   (HNA) can automatically set the appropriate configuration and
   outsource the authoritative naming service for the home network.
</mglt>

4) <!--[rfced] Is "necessary information on the DM and RDM" referring to
the Registered Homenet Domain (option A) or what the ISP
provides (option B)? Please clarify.

Original:
   More specifically,
   the ISP provides the Registered Homenet Domain, necessary information
   on the DM and the RDM so the HNA can manage and upload the Public
   Homenet Zone and the Reverse Public Homenet Zone as described in
   [I-D.ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation].

Perhaps:
A) More specifically,
   the ISP provides the Registered Homenet Domain, which includes necessary
   information on the DM and the RDM, so the HNA can manage and upload the
   Public Homenet Zone and the Reverse Public Homenet Zone as described in
   [RFC9526].
or

B) More specifically,
   the ISP provides the Registered Homenet Domain and the necessary
   information on the DM and the RDM so the HNA can manage and upload
   the Public Homenet Zone and the Reverse Public Homenet Zone as
   described in [RFC9526].
-->

<mglt>
Option B is I think what we meant.
</mglt>

5) <!--[rfced] FYI: we moved the Terminology section after the
Introduction per Section 4 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide").
-->

<mglt>
ok.
</mglt>

6) <!--[rfced] Regarding "DNS over mutually authenticated
TLS [RFC7858]". Is citing RFC 7858 accurate here? We see RFC 7858
is about DNS over TLS, without the words "mutually authenticated"
or "mutual authentication" appearing within the document.

Original:
   The bit for DNS over mutually authenticated TLS [RFC7858]
   MUST be set.
-->

<mglt>
yes, this is the correct reference. TLS makes possible mutual authentication or not.
</mglt>

7) <!--[rfced] We notice that Table 1 (Section 4.4) and Table 3 (Section
6.2) are exactly the same. We suggest Table 1 be removed and the text
be updated to point to Table 3 as shown below; is this acceptable?

(Section 4.4)
Original:
   The Supported Transport field of the DHCPv6 option indicates the
   supported transport protocols.  Each bit represents a specific
   transport mechanism.  A bit sets to 1 indicates the associated
   transport protocol is supported.  The corresponding bits are
   assigned as described in Figure 4 and Section 6.

Perhaps:
   The Supported Transport field of the DHCPv6 option indicates the
   Supported Transport protocols.  Each bit represents a specific
   transport mechanism.  A bit set to 1 indicates the associated
   transport protocol is supported.  The corresponding bits are
   assigned as described in Table 3.
-->

<mglt>
sure ;-)
</mglt>

8) <!--[rfced] RFC 8415 does not contain Section 17.2.2. Is Section 17.2
("Source Address and Interface Selection for Prefix Delegation")
the correct section? Please confirm.

Current:
   Sections 17.2.2 and 18.2 of [RFC8415] govern server operation
   regarding option assignment.
-->

<mglt>
I think this is:

NEW:
   18.3 of [RFC8415] govern server operation
   regarding option assignment.
</mglt>


9) <!--[rfced] We do not see mention of "Option Request Option" or "ORO"
in Section 18.2.5 of RFC 8415. Is the reference correct or is an
update needed to the text?

Current:
   The DHCPv6 client includes the Registered Homenet Domain Option,
   Distribution Manager Option, and Reverse Distribution Manager Option
   in an ORO as specified in Sections 18.2.1, 18.2.2, 18.2.4, 18.2.5,
   18.2.6, and 21.7 of [RFC8415].
-->

<mglt>
   The DHCPv6 client includes the Registered Homenet Domain Option,
   Distribution Manager Option, and Reverse Distribution Manager Option
   in an ORO as specified in Sections 18.2 and 21.7of [RFC8415].
</mglt>

10) <!--[rfced] Please clarify "once-for-ever". Could this be rephrased as follows
for clarity?

Original:
   Again, this configuration update is done once-for-ever.

Perhaps:
   Again, this configuration update only needs to be performed one time.
-->

<mglt>
This seems fine to me.
</mglt>

11) <!-- [rfced] Terminology

a) Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used
inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how they
may be made consistent.

   DHCPv6 option vs. DHCP Option

<mglt>
8415 uses DHCP Option, so I suppose this is fine to use that here as well. 
</mglt>

   Zero Configuration vs. zero-config
      [Are these terms the same or different? If "Zero Configuration"
      is used, should it be lowercase?]

<mglt>
I am fine using zero configuration.
</mglt>

b) We updated the text to reflect the latter terms below for consistency
(and the number of instances is in parentheses for reference). Please
let us know if any further updates are needed.

   Base Scenario -> base scenario (1)
   DHCPv6 Option -> DHCPv6 option (2)

<mglt>
I am fine with DHCP(v6) (O/o)ption. I have the impression 8415 is using DHCPv6 in the title and then talks only about DHCP Options. 7227 uses "DHCPv6 option". 
</mglt>

   Forward Distributed Manager Option -> Forward Distribution Manager Option (1)
   Homenet Registered Domain -> Registered Homenet Domain (2)
   Information -> information (1)
   supported transport -> Supported Transport (4) (per RFC-to-be 9526)
-->

<mglt>
That seems fine to be.

</mglt>

12) <!--[rfced] Abbreviations

a) We have added expansions for the following abbreviations
per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each
expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness.

   fully qualified domain name (FQDN) (per RFC-to-be 9526)

b) The expansion for "CPE" in this document (i.e., "Customer Edge (CPE)")
does not match the expansion in RFC 7368 and RFC-to-be 9526 (i.e.,
"Customer Premises Equipment (CPE)"). Please let us know which form is
preferred. Note that the acronym for "Customer Edge" is "(CE)".

  Customer Edge (CPE) vs. Customer Premises Equipment (CPE)
-->

<mglt>
I beleive we can use Customer Premises Equipment (CPE)
</mglt>
13) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online
Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
and let us know if any changes are needed.

Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should
still be reviewed as a best practice.
-->


Thank you.

RFC Editor/kc/ar


On Dec 18, 2023, [e-mail] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2023/12/18

RFC Author(s):
--------------

Instructions for Completing AUTH48

Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).

You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing
your approval.

Planning your review
---------------------

Please review the following aspects of your document:

*  RFC Editor questions

  Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor
  that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as
  follows:

  <!-- [rfced] ... -->

  These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.

*  Changes submitted by coauthors

  Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
  coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you
  agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.

*  Content

  Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot
  change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention to:
  - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
  - contact information
  - references

*  Copyright notices and legends

  Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
  RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
  (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).

*  Semantic markup

  Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of
  content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode>
  and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at
  <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.

*  Formatted output

  Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
  formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is
  reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting
  limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.


Submitting changes
------------------

To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties
include:

  *  your coauthors

  *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)

  *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g.,
     IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the
     responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).

  *  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list
     to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion
     list:

    *  More info:
       https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc

    *  The archive itself:
       https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/

    *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out
       of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
       If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you
       have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded,
       [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and
       its addition will be noted at the top of the message.

You may submit your changes in one of two ways:

An update to the provided XML file
— OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format

Section # (or indicate Global)

OLD:
old text

NEW:
new text

You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.

We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text,
and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in
the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.


Approving for publication
--------------------------

To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.


Files
-----

The files are available here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9527.xml
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9527.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9527.pdf
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9527.txt

Diff file of the text:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9527-diff.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9527-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

This alternative diff file shows the changes in the moved text:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9527-alt-diff.html

Diff of the XML:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9527-xmldiff1.html


The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own
diff files of the XML.

Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9527.original.v2v3.xml

XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
only:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9527.form.xml


Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9527

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9527 (draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-24)

Title            : DHCPv6 Options for Home Network Naming Authority
Author(s)        : D. Migault, R. Weber, T. Mrugalski
WG Chair(s)      : Kiran Makhijani, Stephen Farrell
Area Director(s) : Erik Kline, Éric Vyncke