Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp-03

The document seems OK (reviewing from the DHC WG perspective).

Minor nits:

1)

2. Terminology
   o  DHCP refers to both DHCPv4 [RFC2131] and DHCPv6 [RFC3315].
   o  DHCP client (or client) denotes a node that initiates requests to
      obtain configuration parameters from one or more DHCP servers
      [RFC3315].
   o  DHCP server (or server) refers to a node that responds to requests
      from DHCP clients [RFC3315].

Why are DHCP client / DHCP server just RFC 3315 and use of "DHCP" here implies RFC 2131 and 3315 from the earlier terminology.

2)

4.1.  Format

       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |      OPTION_PCP_SERVER        |         Option-length         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      :                    PCP Server Domain Name                     :
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                  Figure 1: PCP Server Name DHCPv6 Option

   The fields of the option shown in Figure 1 are as follows:

   o  Option-code: OPTION_PCP_SERVER (TBA, see Section 9.1)
   o  Option-length: Length of the 'PCP Server Domain Name' field in
      octets.
   o  PCP Server Domain Name: The domain name of the PCP Server to be
      used by the PCP Client.  The domain name is encoded as specified
      in Section 8 of [RFC3315].

   The OPTION_PCP_SERVER option can include multiple PCP Server Domain
   Names; each Name is treated as a separate PCP Server.

Would it not be appropriate to change the "PCP Server Domain Name" to be "PCP Server Domain Name(s)"? And make the description clear that it can be one or more rather than adding this later (where it easily might be missed).

The same applies to the DHCPv4 option (section 5.1).

3)

Be nice if the DHCPv4 domain name encoding clarified that compression was not allowed (though RFC 1035 section 3.1 does not say anything about that topic)? Perhaps use the RFC 3315 Section 8 text:

   A domain name, or list of domain  names, in DHCP MUST NOT be stored in compressed form, as described in
   section 4.1.4 of RFC 1035.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dave Thaler
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 5:50 PM
To: pcp@ietf.org
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp-03

Correcting DHC WG email address.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of 
> Dave Thaler
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 2:21 PM
> To: pcp@ietf.org
> Cc: dhc@ietf.org
> Subject: [pcp] WGLC on draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp-03
> 
> As discussed at last IETF, the authors believe that all issues raised 
> so far have been addressed.  No new issues have been raised since 
> then, so this message begins a Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp-03.
> 
> This call would normally conclude in two weeks but that is during IETF 
> week, so the last call is extended to conclude at the end of IETF (as 
> of the Friday PCP meeting).
> 
> We also agreed in Vancouver that this last call will be cross-posted 
> to the DHC list, hence cc'ing the DHC WG.
> 
> We need at least 5 reviewers.  Please send comments to the list.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Dave Thaler
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pcp mailing list
> pcp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp

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