[dhcwg] issues with draft-grochla-80211-dhcp-option-00

[Alfred Hönes <[e-mail]>]

I have two fundamental concerns and found several minor issues with
draft-grochla-80211-dhc-option-00 :

a)  The scope of the proposed options is _very_ restricted.
    Given the scarcity of DHCPv4 option numbers and the intimate
    relationship to IEEE 802.11, wouldn't it be a much cleaner
    solution to use vendor-specific options for this purpose (under
    an IEEE owned vendor ID) than further reducing the DHCPv4 option
    code name space -- the latter should preferably be reserved for
    options with a more general applicability?

    Such specification would perhaps need support from IEEE 802.11,
    but could be published as an Informational RFC.

b)  The option formats for DHCPv6 and DHCPv4 differ in a substantial
    way.  Firstly, the option codes are drawn from independent
    namespaces of different bit size (single-octet vs. 16-bit option
    code fields) and the option-length fields have both different
    width and different semantics.  Further, the processing rules
    are different in a subtle way (e.g. concatenation in DHCPv4).

    Therefore, options for DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 need to be specified
    independently, and for the independent option code name spaces
    independent IANA assignment requests need to be included.
    Further, the ways to request delivery of options is different
    in v6 from v4 and needs to be spelled out differently.
    The syntax of the information elements should be specified,
    in order to allow proper treatment in mechanisms to configure
    DHCP servers intended to serve this option (the current draft
    only describes the option-code and option-length fields for the
    DHCPv6 case).

Minor issues:  Please ...
-  perform an in-depth grammar check of the text (with a particular
   focus on the use of articles and on singular/plural mismatches);
-  avoid such silly phrases as "DHCP protocol" -- where the "P" already
   stands for "protocol".
-  Where you say "[to] relay on", I suspect you mean "[to] rely upon".
-  Finally, I suggest to use the current I-D boilerplate text for
   the front page "Status of this Memo" -- including the placement
   of the Abstract in front of that boilerplate text.


Kind regards,
  Alfred Hönes.

-- 

+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: [phone], Fax: -18         |
| D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  [e-mail]                     |
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+