[dhcwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-05: (with COMMENT)

["Benoit Claise" <[e-mail]>]

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-05: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

>From the draft:
   [RFC3633] is unclear about how the client and server should act in
   different situations involving the prefix-length hint. 
>From the shepherd write-up
   This document specifies information that is useful to DHCPv6 client
   and server implementers to support allowing clients to specify a
   prefix length hint when requested delegated prefixes. It clarifies
   this concept introduced in RFC 3633.

=> that implies an UPDATE, no?
Obviously, this document publication should go forward (so not a
DISCUSS), but I would like to understand why this is not an update.

Editorial nit (by Sue Hares, part of her OPS DIR review):

Page 3 section 3.1 section under problem.  Second paragraph.  Second
sentence

The best way to assure a completely new delegated prefix is to send a new
IAID in the IA_PD.
IAID – abbreviation has not been indicated prior to this use
Old:/IAID/
New: /IAID (IA_PD unique identifier)/