Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-pd-exclude-01

[Tomasz Mrugalski <[e-mail]>]

On 19.04.2011 21:18, Ted Lemon wrote:
> We had a last call on this prior to the Prague meeting, and there was
> work done off list, but no responses on-list.   If you support this
> work, please indicate that you support it.   If you oppose the work,
> please provide suggestions, comments, or reasons why it's entirely a
> bad idea.
I read and support this draft.

I know that it's way past dead-line, so feel free to ignore my comments.

Here are my comments. If it is not too late, you could consider them:

1. Section 1:
"single aggregatable route/prefix has to represents one customer"
=> remove "has to" or change represents to represent.

2. Section 4.1
"The requesting router MUST NOT assign the excluded prefix to any of its
downstream interfaces.". Is this implicit suggestion that assigning
excluded prefix to upstream interface is ok? That would be against
RFC3633, Section 12.1 that forbids that. This is probably ok, but then
"updates: 3633" should be added to the preamble (and possibly a simple
clarification). However, if the excluded prefix is handled in some
different way (like SLAAC), then it is ok in current form.

3. Section 4.2
"The OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE option MUST be located before the possible Status
Code option in the IAprefix-options field." Why forcing to use specific
order? DHCPv6 does not impose any restrictions regarding sequence, in
which options appear in a message or within other options. There's good
reason for that - implementations may keep the options in structures
other than simple lists or vector, like hash tables. Enforcing any
specific order would be troublesome in that case. I propose to remove
this sentence.

4. Section 5.1
My understanding was that requesting router is supposed to include
PD_EXCLUDE in ORO in SOLICIT, REQUEST, RENEW, REBIND and CONFIRM. Yet,
there is only Solicit message mentioned in the first sentence of 5.1.
Remaining message types should probably be mentioned as well.

5. PD_EXCLUDE option is going to be delivered in IAPREFIX that is
located in IA_PD (not in the message options field), but draft says that
requesting router should request PD_EXCLUDE in ORO placed in message
options field. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to put second instance of
ORO (with PD_EXCLUDE code) in IA_PD sent by requesting router? You may
consider reading draft-mrugalski-dhc-dhcpv6-suboptions and follow its
suggestions, if you that they are reasonable.

Hope that helps,
Tomek Mrugalski
ISC