Re: [dhcwg] [OPS-DIR] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-dhc-problem-statement-of-mredhcpv6-05

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

[ - IETF LC for clutter ]
Thank you Nagendra for the review, and Eric for addressing / taking
these into account - it's nice when the process works well!

W

On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 11:43 AM Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
<evyncke=[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Thank you Nagendra for your review.
>
> I am taking it in account for the next steps.
>
> -éric
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nagendra Nainar via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> Reply-To: "Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar)" <[e-mail]>
> Date: Monday, 25 May 2020 at 17:02
> To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-dhc-problem-statement-of-mredhcpv6-05
> Resent-From: <[e-mail]>
> Resent-To: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, Eric Vyncke <[e-mail]>, Bernie Volz <[e-mail]>
> Resent-Date: Monday, 25 May 2020 at 17:01
>
>     Reviewer: Nagendra Nainar
>     Review result: Has Issues
>
>     Hi,
>
>     I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing
>     effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
>     comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of
>     the IETF drafts per guidelines in RFC5706.
>
>     Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included
>     in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should
>     treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
>
>     Overall Summary:
>
>     This draft is attempting to summarize the problems related to the current
>     practice for extending DHCPv6 protocol. This document does not propose any
>     solution, framework, or protocol extensions and so it does not raise any
>     backward compatibility challenges or operational considerations.
>
>     While the document does not raise any operational/management considerations, I
>     am choosing "Has Issues" as the overall draft may need substantial changes.
>
>     Few comments below:
>
>      The manageability, security, privacy protection, and traceability of
>        networks can be supported by extending the DHCPv6 protocol according
>        to requirements.  This document provides current extension practices
>        and typical DHCPv6 server softwares on extensions, defines a DHCPv6
>        general model, discusses some extension points, and presents
>        extension cases.
>
>     --> The abstract is not clear in reflecting what the draft is about. Based on
>     the above, this draft appears to be discussing current extension practice,
>     extension points, and cases which is more like a survey document that
>     summarizes what we have currently. This being a draft that attempts to document
>     the problem statement, it will be good to reflect the same in the abstract.
>
>     --> The Introduction section may need some rework. It is not clear in defining
>     what is multi-requirement extension problem.
>
>     --> I think, a section (or sub-section) clarifying what is multi-requirement
>     extension with an example use case will help the readers to better understand
>     the objective of this document.
>
>     Regards,
>     Nagendra
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPS-DIR mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-dir



-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf