[dhcwg] Review of draft-ietf-dhc-topo-conf-01

Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com> Wed, 16 April 2014 03:39 UTC

Return-Path: <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E31C21A0022 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 20:39:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lvejNeAOB_nn for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 20:39:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usevmg20.ericsson.net (usevmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 572F11A0020 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 20:39:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c618062d-f79f66d000001393-98-534dacde18f4
Received: from EUSAAHC002.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.78]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 99.60.05011.EDCAD435; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 00:04:15 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from EUSAAMB107.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.124]) by EUSAAHC002.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.78]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 23:38:56 -0400
From: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Review of draft-ietf-dhc-topo-conf-01
Thread-Index: Ac9ZHi1PPgQxUk9oTxe9Ve2nDA1AjA==
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 03:38:55 +0000
Message-ID: <E87B771635882B4BA20096B589152EF6286B7372@eusaamb107.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.11]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E87B771635882B4BA20096B589152EF6286B7372eusaamb107erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrFLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXSPn+79Nb7BBjf/8Fjc7WhhdGD0WLLk J1MAYxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxrSuVtaCNsuK05PPsTQwTjXsYuTkkBAwkfjU+owZwhaTuHBv PVsXIxeHkMBRRolZU74wQzjLGSVON19kAqliA+rYsPMzmC0ioCqx8uBkdhBbWEBPYt3bOWwQ cWOJ6eu6GLsYOYBsPYm+1eIgYRag8kOr57KC2LwCvhKdhy+A2YxAi7+fWgM2kllAXOLWk/lM EAcJSCzZcx7qOFGJl4//sULYShIff89nh6jPl1jY0MAGMVNQ4uTMJywTGIVmIRk1C0nZLCRl EHEdiQW7P7FB2NoSyxa+Zoaxzxx4zIQsvoCRfRUjR2lxalluupHBJkZg4B+TYNPdwbjnpeUh RgEORiUeXqGa3AAh1sSy4srcQ4zSHCxK4rxf3joHCQmkJ5akZqemFqQWxReV5qQWH2Jk4uCU amCc5fbxiPFzTs2JqwRzLid3SEc+e3lT6MbOeO7X4nxsq/93fVkdq+I00yDWr/vM457ebq6p e8/s3nnPWKZDKOX1/02b/h/efzG1WpZRfmHwm7Avwt2cp2WfVWSKbvqZdqFlcVaVfZtS8Pq7 WVmKmgp/cuK49x68tS9yxoTHtQs+hPTH/Ll92CxMiaU4I9FQi7moOBEANFoFg10CAAA=
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/eNG9dF8oStFmQvtbjK7mHkioV-M
Subject: [dhcwg] Review of draft-ietf-dhc-topo-conf-01
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 03:39:03 -0000

Hi,
  I went over  draft-ietf-dhc-topo-conf-01 and I found it to be useful and easy to read. I had some comments that you may wish to address.

Section 2:

I think you were meaning to define "Routable IP address" as the first term but it is missing from the text

Section 3 Page 6:

I think this rewording will make the sentence read better

OLD:
if  the client does not yet have an IP address configuration
NEW:
if the client does not yet have an IP address configured

Section 3 Page 7:

I guess you want to refer to the Interface-Id option when you talk about the Interface Identifier option. If so, can you please replace.

As a side comment, would it make sense to add references for these options when they are first referred to in the draft?

e.g. For Interface-Id add Section 22.18 of RFC3315, for server unicast add Section 22.12 of RFC3315

Section 4 Page 8:

I think this example needs to be rewritten with a different IP prefix reserved for documentation instead of using the 10.0.0.0/8 RFC1918 prefix. Suggest using the TEST-NET-1, TEST-NET-2 and TEST-NET-3 blocks from RFC5737 for this purpose.

[NOTE: Since there are only 3 /24 documentation blocks reserved, the examples need to use a longer than /24 prefix for at least two of the subnets.]

Section 5:

Since the "it" refers to the relay agent code and not the router suggest

s/it doesn't have to be one./it doesn't have to be./

Section 6:

s/first relay agent that seen/first relay agent that saw/

Section 8:

Not sure what the last paragraph adds. Is this text necessary?

Thanks
Suresh