Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04 - respond by Jan. 31

Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com> Wed, 05 February 2014 21:36 UTC

Return-Path: <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8A5E1A022E for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 13:36:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5Y6pkdKtjUnX for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 13:36:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ea0-f179.google.com (mail-ea0-f179.google.com [209.85.215.179]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6085E1A022C for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 13:36:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ea0-f179.google.com with SMTP id q10so429018ead.24 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 13:35:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qP2kPncJUA+pYvk+KnIL+SIiQG8HEtfKIQsg/SGY0RA=; b=OBtAU6/Z/qH+xxJOKIKgfUDdn4oRWpQ5TRWcv0Uxbs4A7EYjAyo3LN7xy4bl/CqvHf owB49/i4auvhJHCibMiBaZbURwNEmCbE+juWPP5ld+NlMevVEwT4/tv4pqCGyvlN+Mr0 xvx70NzQo0ptDPKLuqNPwwmY7pGLBZMaIzD/GVZ+8Eu9g3tQJDyojasgrFG4FNBvTikp i/08sciG8MtdnY7l5jPsMIo5Beio5ABq1MtbtjI8S+Plo3nYUvAb+lXeSSAuLUMt3S43 wFR3AAM0gGRAwyAERdE6aDli+47YLvmNvtr8i2ndJk8VlQyMp3UUinAvfVvSYZI0TqqW PQ7Q==
X-Received: by 10.14.173.68 with SMTP id u44mr1968421eel.102.1391636126202; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 13:35:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from thomson-osx.local (host-109-107-11-157.ip.jarsat.pl. [109.107.11.157]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id m9sm92902710eeh.3.2014.02.05.13.35.24 for <dhcwg@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 05 Feb 2014 13:35:25 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52F2AE9C.2020805@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 22:35:24 +0100
From: Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: DHC WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>
References: <52D87808.8040107@gmail.com> <52D9A59D.4080100@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <52D9A59D.4080100@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04 - respond by Jan. 31
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 05 Feb 2014 21:36:04 -0000

On 17.01.2014, 22:50, Tomek Mrugalski wrote:
> Authors and chairs feel that draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04
> (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration/) is
> ready for WGLC. Please post your comment by end of January.

I support moving forward with this document, but the comments raised
during this WGLC should be addressed.

I have a handful of mostly editorial comments:

Section 1.2 'Host Client Relay' is abbreviated as HCRA. Either use HCR
or 'Host Client Relay Agent'.

"UDPv6 and IPv6" => "UDP and IPv6".

"This interface may be directly on the server...". There's a verb
missing somewhere here (implemented? provided? exposed?)

Section 1.5. The (unfortunately) message names have changed. They are no
longer called BOOTREQUESTV6 and BOOTREPLYV6. (That may have given
an absurd idea to some people to run BOOTP in IPv6 only networks.
Yikes!). The new names are DHCPV4-QUERY and DHCPV4-RESPONSE. The same is
true for the OPTION_BOOTP_MSG => OPTION_DHCPV4_MSG. That applies to the
whole text.

Typo in the last line of the third paragraph (BOOTPRPLYV6), but it
doesn't matter as the name will be replaced with DHCPV4-RESPONSE.

Section 1.3 says that it is not known which or how many DHCPv4 options
would have to be reimplemented in DHCPv6. Yet section 3.2.1 mentions
that implementations exist. Are you sure that's not a copy paste error?
Are there implementations that reimplemented DHCPv4 options one by one
as DHCPv6 options?

Is section 3.4 still necessary? That's essentially native DHCPv4 that is
described in section 5, right?

Section 7.4: reference to section 10 of RFC3315 seems wrong. Section 10
is a nice section, but it explains basic IA concepts and there's nothing
about security there. Perhaps you meant section 11 of
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6?

Tomek

p.s.
Sorry for the delay with wrapping up this WGLC. Will get to it soon.