Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-05 - respond by August 8th

tianxiang li <> Fri, 29 July 2016 06:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2711912D0AF for <>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 23:42:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1VbIXk7qJN9a for <>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 23:42:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69FD5124281 for <>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 23:42:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id w18so94507005oiw.3 for <>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 23:42:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=gsNtTnTnIL1CwOAiJClckX5LJcCRBXS6AskGcU48VlY=; b=fB8Mi0Lwuy+iyqUN4Rli+y3Lk9ZepiZ4LD3+6C17LkpvFPK52gmEtNiBHVo+mfWhvO DwScmTOzR1pexg9oACty0/AtubTDOGEm0GZCTJcG25jidJfilMF42U04Yv4lmWO4Imxu /g4MBEP0J7UWIS1ATkYhFfZiIQfYOxFC32i/g0oBaucvurBLI17eD0HKq407h/ClRYQF nz6UJN35EVJzvhWVqQl6ENwOoopWOsHMljFEwqhGVHmp6PdLFDRNmwp79uXnf6Dcau1W nYMHEcGBYvRP4yuSJp4SAEZJQIOstkIuh07ezGJbnp0AdqoGsSRfbL1KcwT+cQQgmoRm 3usA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=gsNtTnTnIL1CwOAiJClckX5LJcCRBXS6AskGcU48VlY=; b=CR9Kiu81l0lWyoeHRU1GXg4YN+Rr0k0GA7T+9+6bMa4uBzUvtUQS666W7MVkriXb1W SaBZr37a/oeXfHxIjLfTGlnpJzdCEwV75JrBOQ7mKxEcvpu+pYRhB4UQbjOwrW/nSdr9 6R7H/++hnRTgvfVoN9BmSVyaaeQvj8/3aLhWCBlL7lGkjEV4mIHP4VvSo1rkUhEqJsZW 68rgzVq3H5iQfKXXsBzJbhLFr113lVFTMmhBGCtxjCejTvy22eLAQGBN0I60eOpubU69 Hb1C1ggLZUP/JKyQ7QKiCrh02k0Onb39MZY/TSZ+/P+SLvbZ7yYcscywvp4yvQ768apv +UYA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouvTC52EVqweijIh+Ggy6N9bj/xRgCgcQyVzNmhjVkkaylZgySdGNZAN+Dr6Hb/9EKQ1LwTrNCKj8CL6Gg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id c2mr22865842otb.181.1469774524811; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 23:42:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 23:41:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: tianxiang li <>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 14:41:25 +0800
Message-ID: <>
To: Tomek Mrugalski <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c04f8407392b70538c08c4f
Archived-At: <>
Cc: dhcwg <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-05 - respond by August 8th
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 06:42:07 -0000

A few quick comments below:

Throughout the document, “IAPREFIX option” and “IA Prefix option” are both
used (e.g. section 17.1.9.), should there be a unified expression?
Currently, draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue uses the term
“IAPREFIX option” should we change it to “IA Prefix option”?

Some wording errors for Section 22 privacy considerations:

"This section focuses on the server considerations. For extended discussion
about privacy considerations for the client, see [RFC7824].
It(In) particular, Section 3 of said(the) document discuss(discusses)
various identifiers that could be misused to track the client."


2016-07-09 1:03 GMT+08:00 Tomek Mrugalski <>om>:

> Hi all,
> So the day finally has come. Authors working on RFC3315bis believe that
> after over two years of work, this document is ready for working group
> last call. This call initiates the working group last call on
> draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-05 [1]. Since this is a large document (130+
> pages), there's upcoming meeting and a holiday period, chairs decided to
> do an extended last call that will last 4 weeks. Please post your
> comments by August 8th.
> We do have a slot reserved for this work in Berlin. We will present the
> overview of the document (some areas are organized differently than
> original 3315), go over the most important changes and will discuss any
> comments raised to date.
> If you would like to review more important changes, looking at
> appendices A anb B seems like a good place to start. If you like to see
> the list of tickets addressed, see [2]. Many smaller issues were
> discussed on dhcpv6bis mailing list [3].
> This is the most important document the DHC working group is currently
> working on. Please review it thoroughly. Since both co-chairs are also
> co-authors, our shepherd, Ralph Droms, will determine consensus and wrap
> up the WGLC. Thank you Ralph for stepping up and helping with this!
> 1.
> 2.
> 3.
> Cheers,
> Bernie & Tomek
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list