Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-08 - Respond by June 6th, 2017

["Templin, Fred L" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Bernie,

I read the entire document, and have only one comment. In section 18.3, the
sentence:

  "The server must be aware of the recommendations on packet sizes and the
    use of fragmentation in Section 5 of [RFC2460]."

Suggest changing this to:

  "The server must honor the recommendations on packet sizes and the
    use of fragmentation in Section 5 of [RFC2460]."

Also, this same sentence appears a second time in Section 18.3.9. Since
Section 18.3 already applies to all server response message types, I believe
this duplicate sentence in Section 18.3.9 is redundant and could be removed.

I have no other comments. IMHO, the document is ready for advancement
pending the resolution of the above.

Thanks - Fred


From: dhcwg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Bernie Volz (volz)
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 9:54 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Ralph Droms <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-08 - Respond by June 6th, 2017
Importance: High

Hi:

Tomek and I decided to extend the WGLC by about a week (to June 6th) in the hopes of soliciting more feedback.

Please take some time to review this document as this work is a critical product of the DHC WG!


-          Bernie

From: dhcwg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Bernie Volz (volz)
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2017 10:53 AM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: Ralph Droms <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-08 - Respond by May 30th, 2017

Hello:

The co-authors believe that all of the issues reported for the last August WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-05 have now been resolved. But, because of the large number of changes, the DHC WG co-chairs feel another "WGLC" is appropriate.

Please review this document and provide your comments and whether you support the document moving forward by May 30th, 2017. The DHC WG co-chairs will again ask Ralph to evaluate the responses. We are doing a 3 week WGLC as the document is rather large and important to get right!

Please see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-08.

If you'd like to see the differences from the 05 version, use the diff tool at https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff:

https://tools.ietf.org//rfcdiff?url1=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-08.txt&url2=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-05.txt<https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-08.txt&url2=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-05.txt>

The list of issues we recorded and action/assignee details are at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1c3obOwmRQDldw0u_kv85B5Q4LnjnmvUp2MmsHDGmW98 (some additional issues are in https://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/report).

One very recent change to highlight is https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-08#section-18.2.12 - this was to address a criticism that DHCPv6 is not responsive enough for some network configuration changes.

The co-authors thank those that reviewed this document during the previous WGLC and hope that those same reviewers (and hopefully more) will endeavor to do one more thorough review of the document.


-          Tomek & Bernie