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

[Bernie Volz <[e-mail]>]

Hi … have been away. Beginning to catch up. I agree with Tim regarding these comments.

If we reference notification draft, it would likely delay publication of bis document until that one is published which is not a good idea.

I also think that we should not try to reference every dhcpv6 related document - so I don’t see a strong need to reference leasequery or failover. It also makes protocol look more complicated by number of other documents someone may think they need to review. We already have a ton of references.

- Bernie (from iPad)

On Feb 6, 2024, at 8:46 AM, Timothy Winters <[e-mail]> wrote:



Hi Tomek,

Responded in line.

On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 9:40 AM Tomek Mrugalski <[e-mail]> 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
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg