Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp-03

Dear Bernie,

Thank you for the review. 

Please see inline. 

Cheers,
Med 

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] De la 
>part de Bernie Volz (volz)
>Envoyé : jeudi 19 juillet 2012 18:09
>À : Dave Thaler; pcp@ietf.org
>Cc : dhcwg@ietf.org
>Objet : Re: [pcp] WGLC on draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp-03
>
>The document seems OK (reviewing from the DHC WG perspective).
>
>Minor nits:
>
>1)
>
>2. Terminology
>   o  DHCP refers to both DHCPv4 [RFC2131] and DHCPv6 [RFC3315].
>   o  DHCP client (or client) denotes a node that initiates requests to
>      obtain configuration parameters from one or more DHCP servers
>      [RFC3315].
>   o  DHCP server (or server) refers to a node that responds 
>to requests
>      from DHCP clients [RFC3315].
>
>Why are DHCP client / DHCP server just RFC 3315 and use of 
>"DHCP" here implies RFC 2131 and 3315 from the earlier terminology.
>

Med: Fixed. The new text is: 

   o  DHCP client (or client) denotes a node that initiates requests to
      obtain configuration parameters from one or more DHCP servers.
   o  DHCP server (or server) refers to a node that responds to requests
      from DHCP clients.

>2)
>
>4.1.  Format
>
>       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      |      OPTION_PCP_SERVER        |         Option-length         |
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      |                                                               |
>      :                    PCP Server Domain Name                     :
>      |                                                               |
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>                  Figure 1: PCP Server Name DHCPv6 Option
>
>   The fields of the option shown in Figure 1 are as follows:
>
>   o  Option-code: OPTION_PCP_SERVER (TBA, see Section 9.1)
>   o  Option-length: Length of the 'PCP Server Domain Name' field in
>      octets.
>   o  PCP Server Domain Name: The domain name of the PCP Server to be
>      used by the PCP Client.  The domain name is encoded as specified
>      in Section 8 of [RFC3315].
>
>   The OPTION_PCP_SERVER option can include multiple PCP Server Domain
>   Names; each Name is treated as a separate PCP Server.
>
>Would it not be appropriate to change the "PCP Server Domain 
>Name" to be "PCP Server Domain Name(s)"? And make the 
>description clear that it can be one or more rather than 
>adding this later (where it easily might be missed).
>
>The same applies to the DHCPv4 option (section 5.1).

Med: Done.  The new text is:

   o  PCP Server Domain Name(s): The domain name s) of the PCP Server to
      be used by the PCP Client.  The OPTION_PCP_SERVER option can
      include multiple PCP Server Domain Names; each Name is treated as
      a separate PCP Server.  The domain name(s) is encoded as specified
      in Section 8 of [RFC3315].

And 

   o  PCP Server Domain Name(s): The domain name(s) of the PCP Server to
      be used by the PCP Client when issuing PCP messages.  The
      OPTION_PCP_SERVER option can include multiple PCP Server Domain
      Names; each Name is treated as a separate PCP Server.  The
      encoding of the domain name(s) is described in Section 3.1 of
      [RFC1035].  

>
>3)
>
>Be nice if the DHCPv4 domain name encoding clarified that 
>compression was not allowed (though RFC 1035 section 3.1 does 
>not say anything about that topic)? Perhaps use the RFC 3315 
>Section 8 text:
>
>   A domain name, or list of domain  names, in DHCP MUST NOT 
>be stored in compressed form, as described in
>   section 4.1.4 of RFC 1035.

Med: I added this sentence to Section 5: 

"The domain name(s) MUST NOT be stored in compressed
      form, as described in Section 4.1.4 of [RFC1035]."

>
>
>- Bernie
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] 
>On Behalf Of Dave Thaler
>Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 5:50 PM
>To: pcp@ietf.org
>Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp-03
>
>Correcting DHC WG email address.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] On 
>Behalf Of 
>> Dave Thaler
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 2:21 PM
>> To: pcp@ietf.org
>> Cc: dhc@ietf.org
>> Subject: [pcp] WGLC on draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp-03
>> 
>> As discussed at last IETF, the authors believe that all 
>issues raised 
>> so far have been addressed.  No new issues have been raised since 
>> then, so this message begins a Working Group Last Call on 
>draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp-03.
>> 
>> This call would normally conclude in two weeks but that is 
>during IETF 
>> week, so the last call is extended to conclude at the end of 
>IETF (as 
>> of the Friday PCP meeting).
>> 
>> We also agreed in Vancouver that this last call will be cross-posted 
>> to the DHC list, hence cc'ing the DHC WG.
>> 
>> We need at least 5 reviewers.  Please send comments to the list.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> -Dave Thaler
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> pcp mailing list
>> pcp@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>dhcwg mailing list
>dhcwg@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>_______________________________________________
>pcp mailing list
>pcp@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
>