Re: [dhcwg] Reminder - WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-05 - respond by August 22nd

Kim Kinnear <> Fri, 19 August 2016 20:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAEE912D614 for <>; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 13:13:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.768
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.768 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.247, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5RruyvJ2aGo1 for <>; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 13:13:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC7B712D829 for <>; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 13:06:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=5860; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1471637200; x=1472846800; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=ceB3PdCylvSpUklALgtJoWcIuOlyLFI+4qu6fIx/k3A=; b=Jm8RarP3QnAqNS9A6cMn4ojy7z1NMHAg1qsyyJwZ/433ASoDn0ktaOvL gyI3BHLrMFsM/aImcLG/oEmt8pzydykVhh4rCndAVtj4lMS6iHFHQXi8y DRhopEv4FFV4wx2LIBr/Jc70C4HgyED+i1MPPOv4gJ6aFAbIOIfFzPDCP A=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,546,1464652800"; d="scan'208";a="311550280"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 Aug 2016 20:06:40 +0000
Received: from ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u7JK6cmE009346 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 19 Aug 2016 20:06:39 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
From: Kim Kinnear <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 16:06:38 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: dhcwg <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
X-Authenticated-User: kkinnear
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <>, Kim Kinnear <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Reminder - WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-05 - respond by August 22nd
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 20:13:15 -0000

I have read this document, and reviewed it lightly (minor comments below).
I commend the folks that worked on it for their efforts, and strongly
support its moving forward in the standards process.

My comments:

1.2 Seems odd that v4 should be used for v4, not v6, but then RFC7341 is quoted.
Left up to the reader to decide what to do?  Some guidance might be useful here.
5.2 First sentence.  Perhaps "... and is the "stateful address autnconfiguration protocol"  
for IPv6 which is discussed in [RFC2462]." would better
5.4 Figure 1.  I would replace "DSL to subscriber..." with "Network link to subscriber...". 
Or someething like that.  I think DSL isn't going to aid understanding now or into the
13.1  First paragraph.  "This loops can repeat ..." -> "This loop can repeat..."
13.2 "Client MUST choose..." -> "Clients MUST choose ..."
15. I think that "A server MUST discard any Solicit ..." should be "A server SHOULD discard ..."
MUST seems overly restrictive to me, despite being in RFC3315. Not that I expect anyone to
change it based on this comment...

17. Second paragraph after the list. "... solicitation process to obtain the bindings from a..."
-> "... solictation process to obtain the same bindings from a ..."

17.1  I would remove "DISCUSSION:" and just make this a regular paragraph.

17.1.1 "The client MUST include an Option Request option ..." but section 20.7 says
"MAY" include an Option Request option.  The implication in 17.1.1 is that you
have to have an ORO with SOL_MAX_RT in it, or ... what, exactly, will happen?   
Packet dropped?  Seems like either MUST -> MAY, or some additional clarity would
be good here.  This is in 17.1.2 as well.

17.1.11 Here the "DISCUSSION" seems appropriate.  Not clear why that seems to be
the case, as opposed to 17.1.

20.7 "... or the will not ..." -> "... or they will not ..."

Regards -- Kim

> On Aug 15, 2016, at 9:26 AM, Bernie Volz (volz) <> wrote:
> Hi:
> Just a friendly reminder that this (extended) WGLC is scheduled to end in a week (August 22nd).
> Thanks much to all those that have responded so far!!
> - Bernie
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcwg [] On Behalf Of Bernie Volz (volz)
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 9:38 AM
> To: dhcwg <>
> Subject: [dhcwg] Extended - WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-05 - respond by August 22nd
> Hi:
> In discussions with Ralph and Tomek, we have decided to extend the WGLC for this document by 2 weeks. So comments are due Monday 8/22.
> Thanks to all those that have sent review comments so far!!!
> - Bernie (for Ralph and Tomek)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcwg [] On Behalf Of Bernie Volz (volz)
> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 11:14 AM
> To: dhcwg <>
> Subject: [dhcwg] Reminder - WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-05 - respond by August 8th
> Hi:
> Just a reminder about this WGLC ... please review and respond by August 8th. For a reminder as to the goals and key areas of change, please see
> As a reminder, the following people agreed to review during WGLC:
>> From
>    Volunteers for review: Ted Lemon, Bernie Volz, Mohammed Boucadair, Tim Winters, 
>    Tim Chown, Francis Dupont, Paul Ebersman
>    Co-authors (who are supposed to review without explicitly voluneering): Bernie Volz,
>    Sheng Jiang, Marcin Siodelski,
>    Ian - I also volunteered to review
> And, at IETF-96:
>   Yogendra Pal volunteered to review the draft.
> Thanks much!
> - Bernie
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcwg [] On Behalf Of Tomek Mrugalski
> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 1:03 PM
> To: dhcwg <>
> Subject: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-05 - respond by August 8th
> Hi all,
> So the day finally has come. Authors working on RFC3315bis believe that after over two years of work, this document is ready for working group last call. This call initiates the working group last call on
> draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-05 [1]. Since this is a large document (130+ pages), there's upcoming meeting and a holiday period, chairs decided to do an extended last call that will last 4 weeks. Please post your comments by August 8th.
> We do have a slot reserved for this work in Berlin. We will present the overview of the document (some areas are organized differently than original 3315), go over the most important changes and will discuss any comments raised to date.
> If you would like to review more important changes, looking at appendices A anb B seems like a good place to start. If you like to see the list of tickets addressed, see [2]. Many smaller issues were discussed on dhcpv6bis mailing list [3].
> This is the most important document the DHC working group is currently working on. Please review it thoroughly. Since both co-chairs are also co-authors, our shepherd, Ralph Droms, will determine consensus and wrap up the WGLC. Thank you Ralph for stepping up and helping with this!
> 1.
> 2.
> 3.
> Cheers,
> Bernie & Tomek
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list