Re: [dna] Review of draft-ietf-dna-simple-11

["Bernard Aboba" <[e-mail]>]

Ted Lemon said:

"In section 4.6, the draft seems to be saying that the DHCPv6 client
should starty soliciting before it receives an RA.  This does actually
change the DHCPv6 state machine.  In fact, the DHCPv6 protocol has a
specific message for checking in the event of a DNA event: the Confirm
message.  I think Ralph already brought this up; I mention it because
it appears to be a problem to me as well.

I also think that this section goes into a lot of extra detail that is
unnecessary and probably harmful to interoperability, since what it
says doesn't really match what RFC3315 says.  It would be better to
just refer to RFC3315 here."

[BA] I agree.  Elsewhere the document states that it does not modify
DHCPv6, but the draft is sprinkled with instances where it does in
fact do this.  As far as I can tell, none of these changes add value
and so they should be replaced by a reference to RFC 3315.