Re: [Dhcpv6bis] WGLC review of draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-08

["Bernie Volz (volz)" <[e-mail]>]

Tomek:

Did we miss discussing Row 9:

Section 18.2- Page 50 (PDF) (last paragraph of section 18.2): The “and duplicate responses by servers” doesn’t make any sense in this regard. Unicast can only be used for instances where a single server is being addressed so it makes no sense to say this.

There’s no action or assignee. Please review and let me know what you think (action …).

BTW: I am working through my assigned issues, but Row 5 will probably take a bit of time to do (as there are plenty of places to check that field sizes are specified). So that will likely a take few days to work through.


Tomek: Regarding #25 – in 2 places you used “unique local address” and in one “ULA”. Section 9.1 (Relay-forward Message) does define ULA (previous to your edits, it was never used – now used in your 1 place). Perhaps we should cleanup as follows:

-          Remove (ULA) from section 9.1

-          Replace your one use of ULA with unique local address

A few notes below.


-          Bernie

From: Dhcpv6bis [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Tomek Mrugalski
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 2:29 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Dhcpv6bis] WGLC review of draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-08

W dniu 14.06.2017 o 15:08, Bernie Volz (volz) pisze:
We ran out of time for the last few (row 25 and up), but Tomek will take a look at this and update the sheet with comments.
I just did that. Here are my comments for specific lines:
#25: I agree with Bernie's suggestion. The text has been updated. Please review. Bernie reviewed – see above.
#26: Jinmei said he's not sure whether the problem is there, doesn't have time so he gave up. No other reviewers raised this concern, so there's nothing to do there in my opinion. Bernie marked as done.
#27: not sure what to do here. Perhaps we can wait a bit for Jinmei to contribute a text, but don't treat it as a blocking issue for -09 submission? I’ll follow up with Jinmei to ask him if he has text or what he’d like us to do about it (and that we’d like it “soon” for the 09 version).
#28: the current text is pretty clear to me. No action needed here in my opinion. Bernie marked as done.

Tomek