Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 - Respond by Dec 9, 2013

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi,

A couple of comments on the current version of the draft:

Section 8, the sentence beginning ‘The client that intends…’ should read ‘A client that intends….'

Section 8  - Question regarding the sentence ‘The 4o6 DHCP client MUST NOT request the DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6 Enable Option nor the 4o6 Server Address Option in the Boot-request-v6 message’. I think that this text as written is ambiguous.

Is it meant to mean that the boot-request-v6-message can contain any DHCPv6 option with the exception of the 4o6 enable and 4o6 server options? Saying that the client may not request certainly implies that the client could include an ORO option alongside OPTION_BOOTP_MSG. Is the intention to allow this?

If not, why exclude requesting the 4o6 server option? Obviously, it’s pointless allowing the Enable option, but sending the 4o6 server option within the BOOTREPLYV6 to allow a dedicated DHCP4o6 server to tell the client to use unicast seems like it could be a good idea. What’s the reason for specifically excluding it?

There’s also a few other places in the text that need to be aligned with this (the ‘options’ description in Sec 5.2 and paragraph 8 of section 8).

Thanks,
Ian


From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Sunday, 24 November 2013 23:02
To: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 - Respond by Dec 9, 2013


Folks, the authors of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03.txt) believe it is ready for working group last call. Please review this draft and indicate whether or not you feel it is ready to be published. Your input is important! Please respond by Dec 9th, 2013.



At the time of this writing, there is no IPR reported against this draft.



Bernie will be the document shepherd.



Thanks,


-          Tomek & Bernie