Re: [dhcwg] Re: WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-dnsconfig-02.txt

[Ralph Droms <[e-mail]>]

Pekka,

Thanks for the review and feedback; my comments are in line...

And - for other members of the dhc, dnsext and ipv6 WGS: please
respond to this last call notice with comments or an explicit
ack to indicate you accept the draft as published.  Thanks...

- Ralph

At 11:00 AM 2/6/2003 +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
>On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Ralph Droms wrote:
> > DHCPv6" <draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6 opt-dnsconfig-02.txt>.  The last call will
> > conclude on Friday, 2/21.
> >
> > Note that this is a parallel WG last call in the dhc, ipv6 and dnsext WGs.
> >
> > draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6 opt-dnsconfig-02.txt describes two options for
> > DHCPv6: the Domain Name Server option and the Domain Search List option.
> > This document is being considered for Proposed Standard as an extension
> > to the base DHCPv6 specification, and is available as
> > 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-dnsconfig-02.txt
>
>A few comments; I haven't looked too deep into DHCPv6 to be able to
>comment on those parts, but there are some definite need for revisal in
>the doc..:
>
>2. Requirements
>
>    The key words MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD,
>    [...]
>
>==> I'd put these under Introduction or Terminology sections, no use
>having a separate section with a questionable title.
>
>    option-length: Length of the 'options' field in octets; must be a
>       multiple of 16

Should read "Length of the list of DNS servers in octets; ..."


>==> 'options' field has not been defined.  Is it the whole option or just
>the length of DNS-server address options (I assume so)?  If the former,
>there must be 32 bits of zero padding.  Is it ok that the options aren't
>64-bit aligned?

It's OK that options are not 64-bit aligned; I don't think the padding
is necessary.


>    The list of domain names in the 'searchstring' MUST be encoded as
>    specified in section "Representation and use of domain names" of the
>    DHCPv6 specification [4].
>
>==> I didn't bother to check, but I guess this document also defines how
>to pad the names to get some desired level of alignment?

DHCPv6 doesn't require alignment of the contents of options.


>6. Appearance of these options
>
>    The Domain Name Server option MUST appear only in the following
>    messages: Solicit, Advertise, Request, Confirm, Renew, Rebind,
>    Information-Request, Reply.
>
>    The Domain Search List option MUST appear only in the following
>    messages: Solicit, Advertise, Request, Confirm, Renew, Rebind,
>    Information-Request, Reply.
>
>
>==> I would reword these differently, like:
>
>  The Domain Name Server option MUST NOT appear in other than the following
>messages: ....

OK.


>==> is it ok to server to give only one of these options but not the
>other?

Yes.


>References
>
>==> split the references

OK.


>    [4]  Bound, J., Carney, M., Perkins, C., Lemon, T., Volz, B. and R.
>         Droms (ed.), "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6
>         (DHCPv6)", draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-23 (work in progress), February
>         2002.
>
>==> update this draft version

OK.


>Author's Address
>
>    Ralph Droms (ed.)
>
>==> the author is an editor, but the draft does not have acknowledgements
>or contributors section.  Just remove Editor if nobody else contributed to
>the document.

Thanks for noticing the oversight.  I'll add an acknowledgments seciton.


>--
>Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
>Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
>Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
>
>_______________________________________________
>dhcwg mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg