Re: [dhcwg] Please review version -07 of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues

["Templin, Fred L" <[e-mail]>]

I have been asleep at the wheel and should have posted this a long time ago.
Below are my comments based on the state of the document immediately
after the Toronto meeting. Not sure whether some/all of these are OBE.

Thanks - Fred
[e-mail]



Comments:
*********
1) Abstract, would it be better to say:

  "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
   (DHCP) version 6 has since shoe-horned a new option for Prefix
   Delegation into DHCPv6." ?

2) Introduction, first paragraph, same suggestion as 1).

3) Section 4.2, suggested replacement text for Section 17.1.3,
   should it also say:

     ...that contains no
     addresses (IAADDR options encapsulated in IA_NA or IA_TA options),
     no delegated prefixes (IAPREFIX options encapsulated in IA_PD
     options, see RFC 3633) nor any future options ...

4) Section 4.2, final paragraph, I notice in several places the
   document says "without any addresses and delegated prefixes".
   Would it be better at the top of the document to define
   "stateful information" as something like: "addresses, prefixes,
   and/or any future options". Then throughout the document, you
   can just talk about "stateful information" when you want to
   include all of the above. Just an organizational thought - not
   critical to the understanding of the document.

5) Section 4.4.3, third paragraph, again it says "for all IA_NA
   and IA_PD options" - should it also say "for all future
   options of this nature" ? Same as with comments 3) and 4),
   should the document as a whole be reworded to be more
   inclusive to talk about future options in addition to
   IA_NA and IA_PD? (Maybe not - up to you.)

6) Final paragraph of P.10 has text very much like what I was
   trying to infer in comments 3), 4), and 5) above where it
   says:

   "the
   server sends back the IA with the corresponding IA Address (for
   inappropriate address), IA Prefix option (for inappropriate prefix)
   or other option appropriate for the type of the resource"

   Throughout the rest of the document, saying "or other option
   appropriate for the type of the resource" would satisfy the
   "future options" forward compatibility.

7) Near the bottom of page 13, I am having trouble parsing the
   following sentence:

     "In the case when the client included addresses in the IA,
     included addresses are appropriate for the link to which the
     client's interface is attached according to the server's explicit
     configuration information and they are not in use, the server MAY
     allocate these addresses to the client. "

   it looks like it is missing conjunctions, punctuation, or both,
   but it just doesn't "read well" to me. Could be a matter of
   personal opinion.

8) Section 4.5.2, final paragraph where it says:

                       "If the IA_PD contains no prefixes or
                       the prefixes are appropriate for the link to
                       which the requesting router's interface is
                       attached according to the delegating router's
                       explicit configuration information and if
                       prefixes are not in use, the delegating router
                       MAY assign prefixes to this IA_PD."

  Is "MAY" strong enough here? What if the client is depending
  on this particular type of behavior. Should it be a "SHOULD"
  instead?

9) Section 4.5.3, editorial, first sentence of paragraph 2 should
   say "The client also includes *an* IA option...".