Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-host-gen-id-02

Support advancing it. Few minor comments:

Section 3, first paragraph. It is not proper to say routers can "specify" the hosts should use DHCPv6 and/or stateless address configuration. In fact the RFC4862 doesn't clearly defined the hosts should interpret the M/O flags as prescriptive, but just advisory. In other word, it is not determined by the routers, but the hosts themselves. 

In last paragraph of section 4, what is the "address registration procedure"? Do you mean the procedure defined in draft-ietf-dhc-addr-registration ? If it is, it's better to add a reference.

-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ted Lemon
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 10:05 AM
To: dhc WG
Subject: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-host-gen-id-02

The authors have requested a working group last call for this draft.   The draft provides a mechanism whereby the DHCP server can indicate to the DHCP client which prefix it should use for autoconfiguration, for instance for CGA address generation.   This draft has been hanging around for a while, and could definitely use more eyes on it.   Please take the time to review it; if you think it's a good idea, please indicate your support for advancing the draft.   If you think it's a bad idea, please indicate that you do not support advancing it.   If you have comments, they would be very much appreciated.

We will determine consensus on August 27.

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