RE: [dhcwg] Internet Drafts to be reviewed by the dhc WG

Here's some nits regarding draft-tran-midcom-dhcpv6-option-00.txt (and
also -01 which is now posted but identical):

- Abstract: "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6" would be
better than "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol version 6".

- 1 Terminology: MIDCOM should be Midcom to be consistent with usage
throughout doc? Functionnality should be functionality. There's also a
bunch of non 7-bit ASCII characters in the "Midcom Agent" definition?

- 2 Introduction: "the domain name[s] of the Midcom". And, also "or the
domain name[s] of Midcom middleboxes". (Make plural!)

- 4 Midcom Middlebox DHCPv6 Option - "list of [] 128-bit [] IPv6
addresses or, preferably, [a] DNS [RFC1035] domain name[s]."

- 4.2 Midcom Middlebox IPv4 Address List - should be "IPv6", not IPv4.

- Table 1 (in Section 5.2): There is a MUST, but this is only if there
is an address configured.

- 5.2 Midcom Middlebox DHCPv6 Server Option Operation: "This server MAY
send one" ... Is use of "MAY" correct here? I think it should be "This
server should send ..."? The table provides the rules.

I haven't looked at draft-tran-midcom-dhcp-option-01.txt (DHCPv4 option)
- but some of the above nits likely apply there as well.

I don't see anything particularily wrong with these DHCPv6 options,
though as I posted the other day, I think the DHC WG should take on the
issue as to whether this is the best way to handle the ability to
configure addresses and domain names (two options), or whether, as Ted
suggested in a response to my post, to send only addresses.

I guess a good question to Joel and Soumaya is whether just sending
addresses would cause any significant issues?

- Bernie Volz

-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Ralph Droms
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 1:24 PM
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Cc: margaret@thingmagic.com; narten@us.ibm.com; Melinda Shore
Subject: [dhcwg] Internet Drafts to be reviewed by the dhc WG

There are a couple of Internet Drafts under review by the midcom WG that
specify new DHCP options:

draft-tran-midcom-dhcp-option-00.txt
draft-tran-midcom-dhcpv6-option-00.txt

Based on our current charter, the dhc WG should consider collaborating
with the midcom WG on the review of these specifications; specifically,
the dhc WG should review the syntax of the options for adherence to DHCP
requirements and consistency with other DHCP options, while the midcom
WG will review the semantics associated with the options.

Is there any objection to taking on this review as a dhc WG work item,
pending acceptance of the documents by the midcom WG?  Note that the
drafts themselves will appear as midcom WG documents (if taken on by the
midcom WG).

- Ralph

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

RE: [dhcwg] Internet Drafts to be reviewed by the dhc WG - midcom options