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

Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com> Fri, 02 February 2024 14:40 UTC

Return-Path: <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37198C14F71C for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 06:40:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.108 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9aQOVH1nprPz for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 06:40:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ej1-x629.google.com (mail-ej1-x629.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::629]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C74DC14F70D for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 06:40:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ej1-x629.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a3122b70439so302225166b.3 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 02 Feb 2024 06:40:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1706884843; x=1707489643; darn=ietf.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=RfA/1GUQqnEYaBy5W5U1loJb7LR81lX/DssS3BspZwA=; b=hDAHeIwys9lo5OWWrZW+PTFTkokzuKojPj0GyIMru/skI+ecgE5xZN26DdxSmuYPYN K2KAUVr8uRY4U6DwmrORStLl66sgAqgCakRgMQkpJ4iyhPKVuG1HYaiaD1hfTttEq2lW LEqQhwI0w5l4tZKc51rLiM7KCPMQ8gL5NA+F45itUhwHB5odUQWW7yGXoP2jJ7rOCzdf x5e+K7qsmmydIqQVw0ExAZXUSdkIoysR9yITPCRrcQMKPmItm0rv7P0AEz0am+i8m4EJ N/Q2fPpjG/p0AkGQXQTrYD9XrjxNNCSto4k1Jmiq1DnfiSH/J6c8qQh+v/a0L4rSyZhu fW5A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1706884843; x=1707489643; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=RfA/1GUQqnEYaBy5W5U1loJb7LR81lX/DssS3BspZwA=; b=ldfzEuYKMTfRcRzsXCGv/HFYlC+VOFpcZTkst5CTOIeBvU0cmxqUF/TuJevImqZd+e H9e1d9mXCoZH+gDgW3I17RFEugkvYz88KcumD2zbXkfVo/g1cAIVxeCQA8uK0/LCn3Gi xcGbqzDiTcIdWiB2jHYFauhXeu+BGvFTdMwyKXEst8mLDDXMt9lM2dob7L1wl68r5iNJ jdvtRU13yHL08rNxzm4zA8wxcTN0u47tzO9CgZrqL5b2+QDuLnZvsTOeE8DbLrFF4xlh OJwPGQyRgH7yc2to6lWx1y4NR9zKjWgvbCpEz1kQxpSBSmYzTUbJjJEVeU6Ur4wgYs9y jrpA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yzu9MH3Uafjc4yDiD2JPl2eEOZGFVHEOmeqEM4E16xCmVARV0WB dl9C8FBZgd+kKKKiEeH8hBe5ZaBSjXgsrk5Q+Kwh++EdHVr8WyhhH4Y8gw8h/9Q=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHU1OHbzC8EC68RsS2cbP0FPMs7tmRWMrIOqVZamXzFnQ3LsVaT6gFQiNObmykazokY5BIuNA==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:3019:b0:a37:2a73:9730 with SMTP id 25-20020a170906301900b00a372a739730mr380680ejz.57.1706884842807; Fri, 02 Feb 2024 06:40:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.99] (109241122180.gdansk.vectranet.pl. [109.241.122.180]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ig8-20020a1709072e0800b00a3729ce6321sm171312ejc.166.2024.02.02.06.40.42 for <dhcwg@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 02 Feb 2024 06:40:42 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <e89579a4-b7da-4f65-bb94-70f528038d4c@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2024 15:40:41 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US, pl
To: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
References: <9F07C23B-C813-47FE-876A-D35CFA531976@gmail.com>
From: Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <9F07C23B-C813-47FE-876A-D35CFA531976@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/Vdux2pnuxVszCMVtp4W6UOh607Y>
Subject: [dhcwg] Very late comments on WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Dynamic Host Configuration <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2024 14:40:52 -0000

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?

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.

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.".

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.

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?

Any thoughts on this?

With or without those minor edits, I think this document is ready to
move forward.

Tomek