Re: [dhcwg] Very late comments on WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis

Hi Tomek,

Responded in line.
On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 9:40 AM Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm not sure what's the status of the WGLC is. The deadline has long
> passed, but I don't think any wrap up was posted. And the -04 was not
> published yet. So perhaps it's not too late?
>
While we concluded WGLC isn't not too late to make modifications.

>
> Reviewing 130+ pages long document is not a trivial task. I have
> compared 8415 text with that latest version of the draft and found no
> specific issues with the draft.
>
> I do have a small number of editorial suggestions.
>
> 1. SECTION 1: Introduction
>
> Remove "temporary addresses" from the list of resources DHCPv6 can
> allocate.
>
Agree.

>
> 2. SECTION 4.2: Terminology
>
> The section defines IA mentions IA_NA, IA_TA, and IA_PD. And there's
> this text "New IA types may be defined in the future.". IA_LL was
> defined in RFC8947. I propose to change the text to:
>
> "One other IA type was defined (see RFC8947) and more may be defined
> in the future.".
>
Agree, this is good idea.

>
> 3. Should we add references to other DHCPv6 RFCs?
> The text mentions bulk leasequery (Section 19.4), but RFC 5460 is not
> referenced. Perhaps we could add a paragraph somewhere (or maybe new
> section 1.3?) that mentions DHCPv6 mechanisms: leasequery, bulk
> leasequery, active leasequery, IA_LL and failover. On one hand, it would
> make the already huge document a tiny bit bigger. On another, we already
> have lots of references, so I suspect there will be engineers out there
> starting their DHCP journey with this text.
>
My suggestion is maybe add these to Section 6, 6.6 as it is an operational
model? I agree having more information about leasequery is a good idea.

>
> And a follow-up question to 3: If we decide to add them, should we also
> mention draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notification? Some people feel it might
> become a very popular mechanism. But perhaps referencing a draft is not
> something we want to do?
>
I think it's too early to reference that document.

>
> Any thoughts on this?
>
> With or without those minor edits, I think this document is ready to
> move forward.
>
> Tomek
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>