Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-tunnel-01.txt

I am OK with advancing this.

A few nits:

- In section 1:

  The source tunnel end-point often need more configuration data for

I think need should be needs here.

- In section 3, "CE" and "BR" are not defined and should be the first time used (or perhaps a terminology section is appropriate).

Also, while relaying the packet seems like a fine idea, it might be useful to indicate what the relay should use for a peer-address in the Relay-Forw message. It is all 0's? (Normally the client's link local address would be stored there.)

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ted Lemon
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 8:43 AM
To: dhc WG
Subject: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-tunnel-01.txt

The authors of this draft have requested a working group last call.   The draft explains how DHCP clients operate in an environment where the interface being configured doesn't support multicast (e.g., 6RD).   If this is a matter of interest to you, please review the draft and send comments to the list.

If you are in favor of advancing the draft, please say so on the list; if nobody supports it, it won't advance.   If you oppose advancing it, please also say so.   We will determine consensus on August 24.

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