Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol-04

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

>I will make all of the changes that you suggest, and have offered details (indented) below.  Note that while I'm willing to make the change you have discussed in Q3, I don't >actually understand what you would like us to do.
>
>More below...

INTRODUCTION:
  
>> Q1:        In the first sentence of the Introduction, I suggest to say:
>>  
>> “The failover protocol defined in this document provides…”
>>  
>> Otherwise it’s a little unclear what failover protocol you are talking about.
>
>	Sure, good idea.  See Q2, immediately below.
>  
>> Q2:        In the Introduction, before the first sentence, shouldn’t there be some background text, including some information 
>>about the problem that the document solves. I know there is something in the Abstract, but I think there should also be something 
>>in the Introduction, before jumping into the solution.
>
>	I've been chastised for repeating the abstract in the
>	introduction, so I was trying to not do that.  How about we
>	start the introduction with:
>
>	"The DHCPv6 protocol [RFC3315] does not provide for server
>	redundancy.  The failover protocol defined in this document
>	provides a means for cooperating DHCP servers to work together
>	to provide a DHCP service with availability that is increased
>	beyond that which could be provided by a single DHCP server
>	operating alone. ..."

Looks very good.

I know some people don't want to repeat Abstract text in the Introduction, but I still think the Introduction should provide an introduction to the problem :)

>	Note that the last sentence of the Introduction already points
>	to the DHCPv6 failover requirements RFC, which has a lot more
>	to say about this.
>  
>> Q3:        In the Introduction, I suggest adding a reference to the first occurrences of “DHCP service” and “DHCP server”.
>
>	While I'm more than happy to do this, I don't actually know
>	what you would like me to reference?  We haven't defined
>	either "DHCP service" or "DHCP server" in the glossary since
>	we felt they were reasonably apparent from the context of this
>	document.  Are you thinking that we should reference RFC3315
>	on the first occurrence of "DHCP service" and "DHCP server"?

Yes.


>> Q4:        In the Introduction, you switch between “This protocol” and “The failover protocol”. Please use consistent terminology. This applies to the document in general.
>
>	Ok, we'll go with "The failover protocol" since it appears 
>	more times so far.  I will make this global change when I
>	next update the document.  

Sounds good.

  
>> SECTION 4:
>>  
>> Q5:        In the Abstract and Introduction it is said that DHCPv6 does not provide server redundancy. Then section 4 talks about failover concepts and mechanism.
>>  
>> Are those concepts something used for DHCPv6 today, but for some reason do not fulfil the failover protocol requirements?
>>  
>> OR, are these general concepts that will be supported by implementing the failover protocol?
>>  
>> I think it would be good to have an introduction statement clarifying that.
>
>	The concepts and mechanisms discussed in Section 4 relate to
>	the failover protocol, they aren't present in the regular
>	RFC3315(et. al.) DHCPv6 protocol.  I will add the following to
>	Section 4 to clarify that:
>
>	"4.  Failover Concepts and Mechanisms
>
>	The following concepts and mechanisms are necessary to the operation
>	of the failover protocol, and they are not currently employed by
>	the DHCPv6 protocol [RFC3315].

That's better. But, will the failover protocol provide support for those concepts? If so, please indicate it.

Thanks!
 
Regards,

Christer