Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-topo-conf-05.txt - Respond by July 29, 2015

["Bernie Volz (volz)" <[e-mail]>]

As document shepherd and in response to the WGLC, below are my personal comments:

First, thanks to Marcin for his review and comments as he wrote up many of the issues I had (and also caught a few more).

Second, my view is that the document is almost ready and I support it moving forward after hopefully one more edit (I do not expect any of those changes requiring another WGLC).

The corrections are to clean up wording to improve clarity of the text (see Martin's comments). Also:

In section 9, I think there are two use cases missing. The 4 use cases for "multiple subnets on a link" are:

1.       Renumbering. This is probably more applicable to DHCPv6, but could also be used in DHCPv4 (though renumbering there is not graceful as clients only support a single 'lease').

2.       Expanding the allocation space. In DHCPv4 and for DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation, there could be cases where multiple subnets are needed because a single subnet may be too small to accommodate the client population.

3.       Allocating addresses (or delegation prefixes) that are not the same as topological information. For example, the link-address is on prefix X and the addresses to be delegated is on prefix Y. This could be based on differentiating information (i.e., whether device is CPE or CM in DOCSIS) or just because the link-address/giaddr is different from the actual allocation space.

4.       Differentiated services. Multiple allocation spaces exist for different types of clients (i.e., CPE vs CM in DOCSIS).

I also question whether section 8 (Dynamic Lookup) is really necessary and appropriate to this document. There already is text in http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7227#section-8 that discusses this and do we really need it in multiple places? Perhaps adding a reference to this in section 7 (in first paragraph on page 14) would be sufficient?

There are also minor wording changes (adding "a" or "the", rewording several sentences to improve readability, and eliminating contractions (aren't, won't, ...)). And, there are a bunch of typos in the document:

-          "aquired" -> "acquired"

-          "indentifier" -> "identifier" (2 times)

-          "inserted" -> "inserted"

-          "identifers" -> "identifiers"
I will work directly with the authors on these issues.

--

As WG Co-chair, I would appreciate others reading the document and providing their input as to the status of the document.


-          Bernie

From: dhcwg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Bernie Volz (volz)
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 5:15 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-topo-conf-05.txt - Respond by July 29, 2015


Hi all,



This message starts the DHC working group last call to advance "Customizing DHCP Configuration on the Basis of Network Topology", draft-ietf-dhc-topo-conf-05, document as an Informational RFC. The authors believe that this version is ready. We did a WGLC for the 03 draft in October 2014, which raised some issues and resulted in the updates. At that time, we felt the document did not pass WGLC.



The draft is available here:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-topo-conf-05



Please send your comments by July 29th, 2015. If you do not feel this document should advance, please state your reasons why.



There are no IPR claims reported at this time.



Bernie Volz is the assigned shepherd for this document.



- Tomek & Bernie