Re: [dhcwg] draft-despres-intarea-4rd comments

[Rémi Després <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tomasz,

Comments in line.

Le 31 mars 2011 à 16:55, Tomasz Mrugalski a écrit :

> I have partially read the draft (mostly the parts related to DHCPv6) and
> would like to provide my comments. I may have additional comments as I
> finish proper reading throughout the draft.
> 
> First, I'm sorry if my comments may seem a bit harsh, but the currently
> proposed option format is catastrophic. It is basically several
> suboptions stuffed together with suboption-like type and length coded on
> nibbles, rather than usual 2 byte fields, with some suboptions being
> optional. These parameters should clearly be defined as separate options
> (possibly grouped together as suboptions within an option for clarity).

Thanks for expressing a view, this was the goal of this presentation.
No catastrophy ahead, there is enough time make proposal that reach consensus in the WG.


> Defined that way, it would be much easier to parse/build such options by
> involved entities. I will also be less problematic to support by
> implementations that also definition of custom options. Luckily, that
> can be fixed quite easily. Hopefully, there are no (or very limited)
> implementations, so redoing the option layout should be no problem.

No implementation I heard of includes the DHCPv6 part of the draft.

> There are no usual DHCPv6 Server or Client Behavior sections. Although
> not strictly required, they are very convienient for vendors that are
> looking for clean list of requirements that they must meet to claim spec
> conformance.
> 
> There is no mention of DHCPv6 related problems in Security
> Considerations section whatsoever. This should be analysed a bit and
> commented in the text (possibly briefly if there are no new issues here,
> with just pointers to existing RFCs).

No 4rd specific security concern about dhcpv6 ahd been identified, and RFC 5969 on 6rd has no such mention.
Yet, if you have a particular suggestion, why not?

> Also, I have a procedural recommendation. I happen to have worked on
> DHCPv6 option for another IPv4-IPv6 coexistence architecture. The actual
> architecture and the DHCPv6 operation were specified in separate, but
> closely related documents. It worked really well, because discussed
> problems and review groups are mostly orthogonal. They could also
> possibly follow separate adoption paths (or perhaps not, but that is
> something that should be possibly considered).


Doing it earlier might have been more complex than needed, but doing it for a later version does make sense to me.
A volunteer for te DHCPv6 draft will be welcome (I am clearly not an expert of this WG).

> Remi asked for DHC experts to provide help with this. I'm not sure if I
> qualify to that distinction, but I'm happily volunteering for work on
> this. I will coordinate with Remi and other authors how they would like
> to organize the work.

> Hope that helps,

IMHO, it does, thank you.

Regards,
RD


> Tomek Mrugalski
> ISC