Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-bcmcv{4, 6}-option-??.txt

I have a couple of comments.   First, given the process we've been 
going through to free up option codes, I don't think there's a strong 
argument for making these drafts depend on the new vendor-specific 
option encoding, by which I basically mean I don't care about this 
issue, and I don't think the wg needs to care about it.

My main concern about these two drafts is that they are two drafts.   
Why not just have one draft?   There's so much common text between them 
that it seems bogus.   In saying this, I realize that I may well have 
argued the other way earlier - I don't remember the history of these 
drafts very well.   So this isn't a big deal, but I am curious if the 
authors can speak to this point.

Regarding the bcmcv4 draft, the enc byte needs to go.   I don't see any 
reason for this added complexity.  Also, the draft specifies that 
clients should support compression, which I think is right since it's 
consistent with how the domain-name-search-list option works, but then 
the example that's given isn't compressed.   So this should be fixed - 
the example should be compressed.

The text in the bcmcv6 draft is less specific, and the examples are 
extremely unspecific - I would suggest making them more like the ones 
in the bcmcv4 draft if the two drafts can't just be merged.

If the changes I've suggested can be made, I'd be in favor of advancing 
these drafts separately.   I'd definitely be somewhat happier if they 
were combined.

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg