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

["Bernie Volz (volz)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi:

I looked back over my comments (from 7/27) and it looks like they were addressed.

I do have one minor edit I would recommend (and this is from text I had supplied on 7/27):

In section 8, replace "delegated is" with "assigned are"?

   The third use case covers allocating addresses (or delegation
   prefixes) that are not the same as topological information.  For
   example, the link-address is on prefix X and the addresses to be
   delegated is on prefix Y.  This could be based on differentiating
   ^^^^^^^^^ assigned are?
   information (i.e., whether device is CPE or CM in DOCSIS) or just
   because the link-address/giaddr is different from the actual
   allocation space.

Another minor nit is in section 3.2 where "can not" should be replaced with "cannot":

                                                                                                   If the interface-id
   values are not unique, the Interface-id option can not be used to
   determine the client's point of attachment.

And, also Unspecified be lower case?

   DHCPv6 also has support for more finely grained link identification,
   using Lightweight DHCPv6 Relay Agents [RFC6221] (LDRA).  In this
   case, the link-address field is set to Unspecified_address (::), but
   the DHCPv6 server also receives an Interface-Id option from the relay
   agent that can be used to more precisely identify the client's
   location on the network.

And, just a reminder to also make the correction Marcin reported (on 11/2 - see below).

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Marcin Siodelski
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 8:46 PM
To: Tomek Mrugalski <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-topo-conf-06 changes

Most of my issues have been addressed. Thanks.

These are some little outstanding things.


There seem to be some copy-paste errors in section 3.2:

"This mechanism may be used for
   example, when the relay agent does not have a globally unique address
   or ULA [RFC4193] configured on the client-facing interface) on the
   client facing interface, thus making the first mechanism not
   feasible."


Further in section 3.2:

" It should be noted that there the link-
   specific identifier is unique only within the scope of the link-
   identifying IP address.  For example, link-specific identifier of
   "eth0" for a relay agent with IPv4 address 2001:db8::1 means
   something different than "eth0" for a relay agent with address
   2001:db8::2."

There is a typo: "that there link-specific..." - extraneous "there".
Another typo: "IPv4 address". It should be "IPv6 address".

I wonder if the second sentence could be slightly changed:

"For example, link-specific identifier of "eth0" assigned to a relay
agent using IPv6 address 2001:db8::1 is distinct from a "eth0"
identifier used by a different relay agent with address 2001:db8::2"

There is still some mixed use of "DHCP" vs "DHCPv6" in the "7. Regional
Configuration Example".

Marcin