Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dhc-mac-assign-06

[Roni Even <[e-mail]>]

Hi,
Thanks, I am OK with you responses.
On the second point I was looking at a way to avoid fragmentations but I am OK with your response
Roni

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernie Volz (volz) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 12:10 AM
> To: Roni Even; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dhc-mac-assign-06
> 
> Hi Roni:
> 
> Sorry for the late response to this review. Thanks for doing it!
> 
> >1. In the terminology section I was wondering why the client is a device while
> the server is a software. Any reason for this distinction.
> 
> I can easily replace both with "node" as that matches RFC8415:
> 
> So:
>      client        A device that is interested in obtaining link-layer
> ...
>    server        Software that manages link-layer address allocation and
> 
> Replace with:
>    client        A node that is interested in obtaining link-layer
> ...
>    server       A node that manages link-layer address allocation and
> 
> >2. The server can allocate a smaller size chunk and not the requested size. The
> allocation policy is up to the server. Should it be required from the server to
> allocate the largest chunk that is closer to the requested size.
> 
> I'm not sure that this would necessarily be the best thing to "require"? It would
> seem like the most obvious policy, but in the end it really shouldn't matter (i.e.,
> whether the client gets 10% or 90% of what if requested shouldn't matter)? If it
> needs more, it can send additional requests to get the remaining (in one or more
> additional requests). And, we generally leave this issues up to the server as
> policy.
> 
> 
> There was another review that raised some issues (see
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-dhc-mac-assign-06-iotdir-lc-
> chakrabarti-2020-05-11/) and I had some follow up questions related to it. So,
> once those get addressed I will likely do an update.
> 
> - Bernie
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roni Even via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 2:50 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dhc-mac-assign-06
> 
> Reviewer: Roni Even
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review
> Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the
> IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-dhc-mac-assign-??
> Reviewer: Roni Even
> Review Date: 2020-05-11
> IETF LC End Date: 2020-05-19
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary:
> The document is ready for publication as a standard track RFC with nits Major
> issues:
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 1. In the terminology section I was wondering why the client is a device while
> the server is a software. Any reason for this distinction.
> 
> 2. The server can allocate a smaller size chunk and not the requested size. The
> allocation policy is up to the server. Should it be required from the server to
> allocate the largest chunk that is closer to the requested size.
> 
>