Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-topo-conf-06 changes

[Marcin Siodelski <[e-mail]>]

Most of my issues have been addressed. Thanks.

These are some little outstanding things.


There seem to be some copy-paste errors in section 3.2:

"This mechanism may be used for
   example, when the relay agent does not have a globally unique address
   or ULA [RFC4193] configured on the client-facing interface) on the
   client facing interface, thus making the first mechanism not
   feasible."


Further in section 3.2:

" It should be noted that there the link-
   specific identifier is unique only within the scope of the link-
   identifying IP address.  For example, link-specific identifier of
   "eth0" for a relay agent with IPv4 address 2001:db8::1 means
   something different than "eth0" for a relay agent with address
   2001:db8::2."

There is a typo: "that there link-specific..." - extraneous "there".
Another typo: "IPv4 address". It should be "IPv6 address".

I wonder if the second sentence could be slightly changed:

"For example, link-specific identifier of "eth0" assigned to a relay
agent using IPv6 address 2001:db8::1 is distinct from a "eth0"
identifier used by a different relay agent with address 2001:db8::2"

There is still some mixed use of "DHCP" vs "DHCPv6" in the "7. Regional
Configuration Example".

Marcin


On 02.11.2015 16:06, Tomek Mrugalski wrote:
> Hi,
> The updated topo-conf draft has been published two weeks ago, but it
> seems that authors never described the changes, so there they are:
> - updated terminology section
> - updated DHCPv6 to DHCP where the text applies to both v4 and v6
> - fixed several typos
> - clarified the relation between subnet selection based on addresses vs.
>   selecting the subnet based on interface-id
> - updated example in the DHCPv6 section to use IPv6 addresses
> - Removed section 8 about dynamic lookup (added reference to
>   appropriate section in RFC7227 that discusses the issue)
> - added examples that explain why shared subnets may be warranted
> 
> Authors believe that those changes addresses previous comments made by
> Jinmei, Marcin and Bernie. I would appreciate if you could confirm that
> this is really the case (or point out what I have missed).
> 
> Thanks,
> Tomek
> 
> On 20/10/15 05:53, [e-mail] wrote:
>>
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>>  This draft is a work item of the Dynamic Host Configuration Working Group of the IETF.
>>
>>         Title           : Customizing DHCP Configuration on the Basis of Network Topology
>>         Authors         : Ted Lemon
>>                           Tomek Mrugalski
>> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-dhc-topo-conf-06.txt
>> 	Pages           : 17
>> 	Date            : 2015-10-19
>>
>> Abstract:
>>    DHCP servers have evolved over the years to provide significant
>>    functionality beyond that which is described in the DHCP base
>>    specifications.  One aspect of this functionality is support for
>>    context-specific configuration information.  This memo describes some
>>    such features and makes recommendations as to how they can be used.
>>
>>
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-topo-conf/
>>
>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-topo-conf-06
>>
>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dhc-topo-conf-06
>>
>>
>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>>
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dhcwg mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>