[dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-vendor-message-0

[Alfred Hönes <[e-mail]>]

I have reviewd draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-vendor-message-01
and have a few suggestions for editorial improvements.


(1)  Abstract

The draft says:

|  This document requests a vendor-specific DHCPv4 message assignment.
   [...]

This sentence will be OBE by the publication of the memo as an RFC
and hence does not make proper sense for a perpetual Abstract then.
I suggest to simply state:

|  This document introduces a vendor-specific DHCPv4 message type.
                 ^^^^^^^^^^                                 ^^^^^

(You might prefer "specifies" over "introduces", or similar.)


(2)  Section 4

(2.1)
The long paragraph below the first diagram and the related field
description says:

   The option-data field MUST be encoded as a sequence of code/length/
|  value fields of identical format to the DHCP options field and is
   identical to the option-data field of Vendor-Identifying Vendor
   Options [RFC3925].  [...]

The comparative form used seems to be a bit unclear/unpleasant.
I have two alternative proposal for improved wording:

a) swap "identical" and "format" in order to make the former word
adjacent to the comparative "to":

   The option-data field MUST be encoded as a sequence of code/length/
|  value fields of format identical to the DHCP options field and is
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   identical to the option-data field of Vendor-Identifying Vendor
   Options [RFC3925].  [...]

b) using "same" instead of the first occurrence of "identical":

   The option-data field MUST be encoded as a sequence of code/length/
|  value fields of the same format as the DHCP options field and is
                   ^^^^^^^^        ^^
   identical to the option-data field of Vendor-Identifying Vendor
   Options [RFC3925].  [...]


(2.2)
Below the second diagram, the following field explanation is given:

     subopt-len         An unsigned integer giving the length of the
|                       option-data field in this encapsulated option in
                        !!!!!!!!!!!
                        octets.

This is imprecise and confusing; the draft should use the correct
field name, "sub-option-data", from the diagram to avoid confusion:

     subopt-len         An unsigned integer giving the length of the
|                       sub-option-data field in this encapsulated
                        ^^^^
                        option in octets.


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]                     |
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+