[dhcwg] some review of draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-05

"Jeremy C. Reed" <jreed@isc.org> Wed, 03 August 2016 13:24 UTC

Return-Path: <reed@reedmedia.net>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C847B12DBFE for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 06:24:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jXiiY67Ofwzj for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 06:24:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from c-0500.emailmediator.com (c-0500.emailmediator.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A62112DBEB for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 06:23:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (helo=reedmedia.net) by c-0500.emailmediator.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <reed@reedmedia.net>) id 1bUw8p-0004fd-KF for dhcwg@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Aug 2016 09:23:23 -0400
Received: from reed@reedmedia.net by reedmedia.net with local (mailout 0.17) id 2247-1470230603; Wed, 03 Aug 2016 08:23:24 -0500
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2016 08:23:23 -0500
From: "Jeremy C. Reed" <jreed@isc.org>
X-X-Sender: reed@t1.m.reedmedia.net
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Message-ID: <alpine.NEB.2.11.1608030724320.2266@t1.m.reedmedia.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (NEB 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/l_6m858pghWqO8dXOP6lQJwInZM>
Subject: [dhcwg] some review of draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-05
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2016 13:24:02 -0000

I started doing a non-technical review of the draft 
draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-05. Please see note at bottom about why I 

1, DHCPv6 can also provide only other configuration options (i.e., no
   addresses or prefixes).

- "provide only other" doesn't read well. Something missing?

The remainder of this introduction summarizes relation to the
   previous DHCPv6 standards Section 1.1, clarifies the stance with
   regards to DHCPv4 Section 1.2.

- The wording made me think that the Section 1.1 and 1.2 were in the old 
RFCs. Maybe reorder like other sentences, "<xref 
target="previous-dhcp6"></xref> summarizes the 
relationship to the previous DHCPv6 standards, and <xref
target="dhcpv4"></xref> clarifies 
the stance in regards to DHCPv4."

- s/relation/relationship/ ?

- also add an "and"

3.  In the Dynamic Updates to DNS paragraph is there a reference to add 
about "but also autoregistration in IPv6"?

4.2 " - for example, the
            information returned to all clients on the same link - does not
            require a binding."

- Get rid of the dashes. Start new sentence ". For example, the 
information returned to all clients on the same link does not require a 

"there are 3 IA types defined"
- spell out numbers like "there are three IA types defined

"Reconfigure key" mentions "Reconfigure messages" but that isn't defined 
in the terminology. It is covered in detail later, but maybe should be 
summarized in the DHCP terminology section too.

20.25.  s/completeteness/completeness/


I stopped in the DHCP terminology section because at the time of me 
reviewing this, it appeared that the HTML didn't correspond with the 
XML. For example:

Section 9 of <xref target="RFC7227"></xref>

But the HTML didn't match:

 <a href="./rfc7227#section-9">Section&nbsp;9 of

In other words, the XML doesn't match the 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-05 HTML.

But downloading the file ending with .html resulted in:

Section 9 of <a href="#RFC7227">[RFC7227]</a>

which matched the XML. But the HTML served in the URL above 
doesn't match the XML.

It appears that the tools page is serving conflicting files.

Please make sure that the documents are in sync or which ones I should 
be reviewing and I will begin reviewing again.