Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-topo-conf-06 changes

[神明達哉 <[e-mail]>]

At Mon, 2 Nov 2015 16:06:51 +0900,
Tomek Mrugalski <[e-mail]> wrote:

> The updated topo-conf draft has been published two weeks ago, but it
> seems that authors never described the changes, so there they are:
[...]
> Authors believe that those changes addresses previous comments made by
> Jinmei, Marcin and Bernie. I would appreciate if you could confirm that
> this is really the case (or point out what I have missed).

This point doesn't seem to be addressed:

>> - Section 3:
>>
>>    Figure 2 illustrates a more complex case.  [...
>>    ...]  Note that some nodes act as routers (which forward all
>>    IPv6 traffic) and some are relay agents (i.e. run DHCPv6 specific
>>    software that forwards only DHCPv6 traffic).
>>
>> Until we see discussions in Section 7 it's not obvious just from
>> Figure 2 that this is an example of IPv6 network using DHCPv6.  It
>> would be more reader-friendly to explain this is an example case using
>> IPv6 (and DHCPv6) explicitly here.

And this one (there are still some upper-cased textual addresses in
the 06 version):

>> - Section 7, Figure 4: Unless there's a specific reason, I'd suggest
>>   using "2001:db8::/40" etc, instead of "2001:db8:0:0::/40" based on
>>   the recommendation of RFC5952.  For the same reason, I'd replace
>>   "2001:DB8:0:0::/40" with "2001:db8::/40", etc, in the text that
>>   follows.

I also noticed a typo in the revised text.

- Section 3.2 s/may still able/may still be able/

   link, with additional configuration information the server may still
   able to select the proper link.  That requires the DHCP server

--
JINMEI, Tatuya