[Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-dnsdomain-03.txt

Thank you for your review. The draft is indeed going
back to the WG (and sent to the DNS related WGs for
discussion as well).

--Jari

Gray, Eric wrote:
> Authors,
>
> 	I am the the assigned General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) 
> reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see 
> http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). 
>
> 	Please resolve these comments along with any other Last 
> Call comments you may receive. 
>
>
>
> Document: 
> --------
>
>             Domain Suffix Option for DHCPv6
>       <draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-dnsdomain-03.txt>
>
> Reviewer: Eric Gray
>
> Review Date: 9/30/2006
>
> IETF LC Date: through 10/10/2006
>
> Summary:
> -------
>
> 	This draft is not quite ready for publication as a 
> Proposed Standard. 
>
> Comments:  
>
> 	The relatively minor shortcomings of this draft have been
> exhaustively digested on the following lists:
>
> 	DHC Working Group (dhcwg@ietf.org)
> 	IETF-Announce (ietf-announce@ietf.org)
> 	IETF-Discussion (ietf@ietf.org)
>
> People commenting in the (public) discussion include all of the 
> following (no special order - some complaining, some defending):
>
> 	John C Klensin
> 	Frank Ellermann
> 	Jeffrey Hutzelman
> 	Ralph Droms
> 	Matt Larson
> 	David W Hankins
> 	Dave Crocker
> 	Fred Baker
> 	Harald Alvestrand
> 	Keith Moore
> 	Stig Venaas
>
> 	The draft is 5 pages long - meaning that it has less than two 
> pages of non-template content.
>
> 	If any one thing has emerged consistently in the discussion,
> it is that there are some areas that need clearing up.  I have been
> following the discussion, and have reviewed the document itself.  I
> have nothing new to add to this discussion except to congratulate 
> the authors on having created so succinct an Internet Draft as a
> candidate for Proposed Standard.
>
> 	However, I fully support Ralph Droms' suggestion that the ID
> be taken back under the DHC working group aegis (cooperating with 
> the DNSOP working group) and modified - per his suggestions - i.e.
>
> 	1. clarify the use case motivating this option
> 	2. clarify/reword the phrase "domain suffix"
> 	3. simplify the reference to RFC 1035 encoding
>
> I would add to this, in addition, that the clarifications referred 
> to in number 2 above should include clarifying the entire phrase 
> starting with:
>
> "The domain suffix in the 'domain suffix' field MUST include only one
>  item, ..."
>
> 	From the discussion, I believe that phrases "domain suffix" and 
> "one item" both need some clarification.
>
> --
> Eric Gray
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art