[dhcwg] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery-06: (with COMMENT)

["Alissa Cooper" <[e-mail]>]

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery-06: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think it would help to explain the rationale for having both secure and
insecure modes supported.

In sections 7.2, 8.1, and 9, this is a bit of a strange layering of
normative requirements:

The recommendations in [RFC7525] SHOULD be followed when negotiating
   this connection.

If you were going to use normative language here I think this would more
appropriately be a MUST, but I would actually recommend something along
the lines of "The recommendations in [RFC7525] apply" since the
recommendations contained therein vary in their normative strength.
Perhaps the security ADs have a preferred formulation, I'm not sure.