Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-08 - Respond by May 30th, 2017

[Shawn Routhier <[e-mail]>]

Here are the comments I received from Shawn Routhier. He asked me to
relay them to the DHC list due to some e-mail issues.

Nits:

Section 1.1
"Service for IPv6s" => "Service for IPv6"
"errata filled" => "errata filed"

Section 4.2
DHCP Client: "it may feature the" => "it may include the"
DHCP Server: "it may also feature the" => "it may also include the"
Feature isn't wrong but it is a bit odd.

IA: "and identity association for" => "an identity association for"

singleton option: "once as a the" => "once as a"

It probably would have been useful to include a definition
of "other configuration"

5.3
"updates its configuration" => "update its configuration"

6
"the servers via specific interface," => "the servers via a specific
interface,"

6.6 para 3
"to request larger prefix" => "to request a larger prefix"

7.3
REPLY: "Solicit, Request, Renew, Rebind" => "Solicit, Request, Renew or
Rebind"

11 para 2
"such are those defined" => "such as those defined"

16 para 2
"ignore such message completely" => "ignore such a message completely"

18.2.4
"include IA Prefix option with the IPv6-prefix" => "include an IA Prefix
option with the IPv6-prefix

"is terminated when earliest time T2" => "is terminated when the
earliest time T2"

18.2.10, para 2
"options in an Reply" => "options in a Reply"

Not quite nits, but still not major

6.3, last paragraph
The text goes from client to router and back to client.  It might be a
bit better as

   If the client assigns a delegated prefix to a link to which the
   client is attached as a router, and begins to send router
   advertisements for the

6.6
This section discusses multiple addresses via multiple IA_NA or IA_TAs
should it include any text about multiple addresses per IA_NA or IA_TA
(even if that text is simply to discourage it)?

12.2
This section has the line "A client must create at least one distinct
IA_PD" It would be useful to qualify that to only clients that want a PD
need to have an IA_PD.

18.2.4
I'm unclear why the last paragraph (about moving from renew to rebind
at T2) has the the extra text about reconfigure.  It seems to be it
could be stated a bit more bluntly:

  The message exchange is terminated when the earliest time T2 is
  reached and The client begins a Rebind message exchange (see Section
  18.2.5). If the client was responding to a Reconfigure, the client
  ignores and discards the Reconfigure message.

18.3 para 3
"a Reply in response to a Request," => "a Reply in response to Request,"

18.3.2
There are a couple of typos in this ppart of the text and I'm not sure
what "the presence" refers to.
   Currently sending this option in Reply is technically redundant, as
   the use of the reconfiguration mechanism requires an authentication
   and currently the only defined one is Reconfigure Key Authentication
   Protocol (see Section 20.4 for details) and the presence or
   reconfigure key signals support for Reconfigure acceptance.  However,

I think this is what it is trying to say

   Currently sending this option in Reply is technically redundant, as
   the use of the reconfiguration mechanism requires authentication
   and currently the only one defined is Reconfigure Key Authentication
   Protocol (see Section 20.4 for details) and the presence of a
   reconfigure key signals support for Reconfigure acceptance.  However,

21.4
'non-temporary addresses; "it is up' => 'non-temporary addresses; it is up'

(there is an extra double quote in the sentence)

Tomek Mrugalski
(on behalf of Shawn Routhier)