Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-03 - Respond by 10/10/2016

["Bernie Volz (volz)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi:

(WG chair hat off)

I do support this document moving forward. I believe this document is ready to forward on.

There are a few nits in the document:

1.       "for a explicit address" should be "for an explicit address" (Section 1).

2.       Persistant is misspelled (persistent). Section 3.1.

3.       Indiction is misspelled (indication). Section 3.1.

4.       Avaiable is misspelled (available). Section 3.1.

5.       Solicted is misspelled (Solicted). Section 3.3. This probably also should be lower case? Or reword: "If the client sent a Solicit with only IA_PDs" ... That might be best? Note that the last paragraph as a similar issue with use of Solicited (though spelled correctly there).

6.       Best to capitalize "Servers" - first word of problem statement for Section 3.4.

7.       "it's lifetime expires" in Section 3.5 should be "its lifetime expires".

8.       And, we might as well also fix the two places spaces are missing:

a.       In Section 1: Prefix Option(IAPREFIX option),

b.      In Section 3.5: bindings(e.g. a

I do think while this document should be published on its own, we should plan to update draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis with just the section 3.6, General Recommendation. Currently, this means adding text to 17.1.2 (Request Messages) as this does not mention the prefix length hint. 17.1.1 (Solicit) and 17.1.4 (Renew) do mention it. (17.1.5 (Rebind) references 17.1.4 (Renew) so doesn't need it explicitly). We might also update 17.2.1 (Receipt of Solicit), though 17.2.9 (Advertise) does, 17.2.2 (Receipt of Request) and 17.2.5 (Receipt of Rebind) to mention the prefix length hint (17.2.4, Receipt of Renew) - or figure out another way to handle it for Reply's. And, perhaps 20.22 (IAPREFIX option) should mention that the client SHOULD include this option in each Solicit, Request, Renew, or Rebind it sends if it chooses to make use of sending a prefix length hint. So that text which is now (in the -05):
   A requesting router may set the IPv6 prefix field to zero and a given
   value in the prefix-length field to indicate a preference for the
   size of the prefix to be delegated.
Would be:

   A requesting router may set the IPv6 prefix field to zero and a given

   value in the prefix-length field to indicate a preference for the

   size of the prefix to be delegated. The requesting router SHOULD send

   this prefix-length hint in any Solicit, Request, Renew, or Rebind

   that it sends.

Anyway, we can deal with that later as per https://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/114.


-          Bernie

From: dhcwg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Bernie Volz (volz)
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 10:34 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-03 - Respond by 10/10/2016


Hi all,



This message starts the DHC Working Group Last Call to advance draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-03, DHCPv6 Prefix Length Hint Issues. This document¹s intended status is Proposed Standard. At present, there is no IPR file against this document.



Please send your comments by October 10, 2016. If you do not feel this  document should advance, please state your reasons why.



Bernie Volz is the assigned shepherd.



- Tomek & Bernie