Re: [dhcwg] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-dhc-v6only-06: (with COMMENT)

[Jen Linkova <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 1:33 AM Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]> wrote:
> The points that I'm bringing up come from a perceived lack of clarity.
> After the exchange that we've had, it is evident that my perception is
> due to a lack of expertise in the operational aspects.  Instead of
> fumbling around trying to explain and insisting on adding text to make
> me happy, I'll defer to you/AD to make any changes you consider
> appropriate.  While I believe that RFCs should be accessible to a
> broad audience, it is unnecessary to lengthen this discussion. :-)

Thank you for your feedback! It's always very helpful to get someone
fresh to review the document and test its readability..
We'll discuss how we can make the document easier to understand.

> Just one comment below. ;-)

> > How about:
> > "Alternatively, if offering 0.0.0.0 is not feasible due to some
> > limitations, the server MAY include an available IPv4 address from the
> > pool into the DHCPOFFER as per recommendations in > target="RFC2131"/>.'?
>
> s/is not feasible due to some limitations/is not feasible in the local network
> "some limitations" sounds too vague to be normative.

Actually -07 currently says:
'Alternatively, if offering 0.0.0.0 is not feasible, for
   example due to some limitations of the server or the network
   infrastructure, the server MAY include an available IPv4 address from
   the pool into the DHCPOFFER as per recommendations in [RFC2131].'

I hope that sounds better.



-- 
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry