Re: [dhcwg] PKIX WG new I-D draft: DHCP section review

I agree with Damien's review.  Take a look at RFC 4280 for an example  
of how to write parallel definitions for an option in DHCPv4 and DHCPv6.

-  Ralph

On Dec 2, 2008, at Dec 2, 2008,3:11 PM, Damien Neil wrote:

> On Dec 2, 2008, at 11:49 AM, Massimiliano Pala wrote:
>>    http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pkix-prqp-01.txt
>>
>> I would need the expertise from your WG to validate the DHCP part  
>> of the I-D.
>
> At first glance, two issues jump out at me:
>
> Section B.1.1 does not indicate whether the option is for DHCPv4 or  
> DHCPv6.  The option code and length fields are 16 bits wide, which  
> implies DHCPv6, but the examples in subsequent sections imply  
> DHCPv4.  DHCPv4 options encode the option code and length as a  
> single octet each.  (Section B.1.1 also references RFC 3315,  
> implying DHCPv6.)
>
> Section B.1.1 specifies that the option contains a list of DNS  
> names, but the ISC DHCP examples in section B.1.2 are for an option  
> containing a list of IPv4 addresses.
>
>               - Damien
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg