[dhcwg] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol-04: (with COMMENT)

["Stephen Farrell" <[e-mail]>]

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol-04: 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-failover-protocol/



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


- I support Ben's discuss about "secure mode" - a few
more details are needed, in particular how a pair
decide to use/not-use TLS - are there different ports
or a STARTTLS equivalent - I can't see that defined
here. (Is it inherited from RFC7653? If so, maybe you
need to say?)

- For the DNS update stuff - is there no need to use
TSIG secrets? If there is, how is that sync'd between
the pair of DHCP servers?  If it is sync'd then don't
you need to say that TLS is a MUST for such
connections? If there is no support for TSIG, is that
likely to work?