[dhcwg] IESG feedback on draft-ietf-dhc-csr-05.txt

Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Fri, 01 February 2002 16:57 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA03458 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 11:57:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id LAA25772 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 11:57:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost []) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA24100; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 11:28:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin []) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA24075 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 11:28:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from e21.nc.us.ibm.com (e21.nc.us.ibm.com []) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02190 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 11:28:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from southrelay02.raleigh.ibm.com (southrelay02.raleigh.ibm.com []) by e21.nc.us.ibm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA67406 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 10:23:49 -0600
Received: from rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (rotala.raleigh.ibm.com []) by southrelay02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.11.1m3/NCO v5.01) with ESMTP id g11GSNb281614 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 11:28:23 -0500
Received: from rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (narten@localhost) by rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g11GShQ01490 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 11:28:43 -0500
Message-Id: <200202011628.g11GShQ01490@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 11:28:43 -0500
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
Subject: [dhcwg] IESG feedback on draft-ietf-dhc-csr-05.txt
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org

The authors have seen most of these already, but I thought it
appropriate for the WG to see them as well. The first one, in
particular, we should have caught ourselves!

Once these issues are addressed, I expect the IESG will approve the
document in short order. (The next IESG telechat is next Thursday, so
it would be nice to have a new ID in place by then!)

> Security Considerations
>    DHCP currently provides no authentication or security mechanisms.

What about RFC 3118?

> 1. The document uses "classed" to refer to non-classless addresses.
> In my experience, "Classful" is a much more common term (e.g. RFC 1817's
> title, and a grep for "classed" in all RFCs vs. a grep for "classful".)
> 2. It's not completely clear what "supersedes" in the abstract means.
> Does this document obsolete option 33?  It should probably say "Updates
> RFC2132"?  Also, mentioning Classless vs. Classful in the abstract
> would probably be appropriate, and I always think that "new" or "old"
> in abstracts end up out of date too quickly - how about this replacement
> wording:
>    This document defines a DHCP option which is passed from the DHCP
>    Server to the DHCP Client to configure a list of classless static
>    routes in the client.  This option should be used instead of the
>    classful Static Route option (option 33) defined in RFC2132.
> 3. The IANA Considerations section is missing an "of" in "..the list DHCP
> option codes.."


dhcwg mailing list