Re: [dhcwg] Last call on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-ldra-01

["MILES DAVID" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alfred,

I must have missed the earlier comments regarding this as they are certainly appreciated (and should have been incorporated back then). I thought we got most of them last time (thanks for that review as well) so my apologies here.

I'll find the old posting and ensure the guidelines are followed.

Cheers,

-David

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Alfred HÎnes
Sent: Friday, 27 November 2009 9:07 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Last call on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-ldra-01

Folks,
I also support this draft.

I have studied it again and found a bunch of additional editorial
nits that need to be addressed before publication, but simply don't
have the cycles available for a complete writeup this (+next) week.

The only detail IMHO important for clarity is adding precision in
the figures in sections 7.1 through 7.3 :
The arrow lines below the network diagrams should be extended to
precisely represent the span of the IPv6 links; since the LDRA
is operating at layer 2, no IPv6 link can terminate in an LDRA;
so all arrows should end below an interface of either a "Client",
"Relay*", or "Server" box (where 'interface' in the artwork means
the part of the graphical representation of the node that joins
the line representing the physical link).
I had mentioned this in an earlier review, including detailed
examples of how the artwork might better look like, but these
recommendations have not been followed so far.

Also, the [L2RA] ref. needs to be updated.

I'll try to compile the list of editorials soon, but that should
not hold off the draft now.


Kind regards,
  Alfred HÎnes.