Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-proxyserver-opt-00

One technical question: rather than allowing multiple instances of the same
suboption, would it be possible to allow multiple servers to be specified in
one instance of the suboption?  If so, the  number of proxy servers in the
suboption would be reflected in the suboption length field, which would be
6*number-of-servers.

I also have some editorial suggestions...

The document should be revised to reflect the new boilerplate in RFC 3667.

Use "suboption" throughout the document.

I don't think HTTP, FTP, SSL, etc. need to appear in the Terminologies
section.  Those definitions could be replaced with references to the
relevant RFCs in the body of the document.

Section 2, first paragraph; replace "does not include Proxy(HTTP, FTP, NNTP,
Gopher etc.)server configuration to be used" with "does not include a list
of proxy servers for HTTP, FTP, NNTP, Gopher and other protocols to be used".

Section 2, second paragraph: replace "Following Figure, depicts..." with
"The following figure depicts..."

Section 2, third paragraph: replace "special software typically runs on
firewall machine" with "process that typically runs on a firewall"

Section 2, fourth paragraph: replace "Proxy server" with "A proxy server".

Section 4, second paragraph: replace "Code is TBD as per RFC-2939" with
"Code is TBD and will be assigned by IANA according to RFC 2939"

Section 4, fourth paragraph: the end of the last sentence should be modified
to allow for new protocol numbers to be defined in the future.

Section 4, fifth paragraph: should both the proxy server address and port
nubmer be in network byte order?

Sections 8 and higher should be renumbered (sections 6 and 7 are missing).

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg