Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-rapid-commit-opt-00

I see that this draft includes a notice regarding IPR.  The Samsung IPR
statement appears to apply across all IETF submissions.  Can the authors
clarify if there are any IPR claims that apply specifically to this document?

The format of the option - specifically, option length == 0 - is consistent
with other DHCP options.  Will length 0 cause problems in practice with
deployed DHCP servers?

The document should be republished to include RFC 3667 boilerplate,
including the RFC 3667 IPR notification statement.

I have one editorial comment: the document should indicate that the use of
Rapid Commit is optional on the part of the client, under local (client)
admin control.  In section 3, I suggest changing the first sentence:

      A client that supports the Rapid Commit option SHOULD include it in
      DHCPDISCOVER messages that it sends.

to:

      If a client that supports the Rapid Commit option intends to use
      the rapid commit capability, it includes a Rapid Commit option in
      DHCPDISCOVER messages that it sends.

In section 3.1, list item 1, I suggest changing the first sentence:

         1. The client broadcasts a DHCPDISCOVER message on its local
            physical subnet and  SHOULD include the Rapid Commit option if
            it supports this option.

to:

         1. The client broadcasts a DHCPDISCOVER message on its local
            physical.  If the client supports the Rapid Commit option
            and intends to use the rapid commit capability, it includes
            a Rapid Commit option in the DHCPDISCOVER message.

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