Re: [dhcwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-05: (with COMMENT)

[tianxiang li <[e-mail]>]

Hi Benoit,

Thanks for the review and comments.
Please see inline.

Cheers,
Tianxiang

2017-02-16 18:16 GMT+08:00 Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>:

> Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-05: 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-dhcpv6-prefi
> x-length-hint-issue/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >From the draft:
>    [RFC3633] is unclear about how the client and server should act in
>    different situations involving the prefix-length hint.
> >From the shepherd write-up
>    This document specifies information that is useful to DHCPv6 client
>    and server implementers to support allowing clients to specify a
>    prefix length hint when requested delegated prefixes. It clarifies
>    this concept introduced in RFC 3633.
>
> => that implies an UPDATE, no?
> Obviously, this document publication should go forward (so not a
> DISCUSS), but I would like to understand why this is not an update.
>

[Tianxiang] This point was raised during several of the reviews, I think
the general consensus is that this document should update RFC 3633, and
also point people looking at RFC3633 to this document. We would make this
edit in the update.

>
> Editorial nit (by Sue Hares, part of her OPS DIR review):
>
> Page 3 section 3.1 section under problem.  Second paragraph.  Second
> sentence
>
> The best way to assure a completely new delegated prefix is to send a new
> IAID in the IA_PD.
> IAID – abbreviation has not been indicated prior to this use
> Old:/IAID/
> New: /IAID (IA_PD unique identifier)/
>
> [Tianxiang] Thanks you for the reminder, we would make the edit as Bernie
mentioned in the email.

Old: IAID
New: IAID (Identity Association IDentifier)