[dhcwg] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dhc-mac-assign-06

Roni Even via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 12 May 2020 06:50 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE39F3A0C88; Mon, 11 May 2020 23:50:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Roni Even via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-dhc-mac-assign.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.129.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <158926621972.24137.14737405711720351698@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 23:50:19 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/-bH7LDnxCmbCBbsoTa3QjoUZc_k>
Subject: [dhcwg] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dhc-mac-assign-06
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 06:50:20 -0000

Reviewer: Roni Even
Review result: Ready with Nits

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-dhc-mac-assign-??
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2020-05-11
IETF LC End Date: 2020-05-19
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary:
The document is ready for publication as a standard track RFC with nits
Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:
1. In the terminology section I was wondering why the client is a device while
the server is a software. Any reason for this distinction.

2. The server can allocate a smaller size chunk and not the requested size. The
allocation policy is up to the server. Should it be required from the server to
allocate the largest chunk that is closer to the requested size.