[Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-solmaxrt-update-03

"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> Sun, 25 August 2013 11:29 UTC

Return-Path: <dromasca@avaya.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F116B21F9C68 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Aug 2013 04:29:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.297
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.297 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.302, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6E+SyKnC6jbt for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Aug 2013 04:29:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56FBC21F9C60 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Aug 2013 04:29:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,951,1367985600"; d="scan'208";a="21229853"
Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 25 Aug 2013 07:29:19 -0400
Received: from unknown (HELO AZ-FFEXHC03.global.avaya.com) ([]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 25 Aug 2013 07:21:54 -0400
Received: from AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com ([fe80::6db7:b0af:8480:c126]) by AZ-FFEXHC03.global.avaya.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0146.000; Sun, 25 Aug 2013 07:29:17 -0400
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-solmaxrt-update-03
Thread-Index: Ac6hhlVUdvoB/lq5S0+dyAesAOqvsQ==
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 11:29:17 +0000
Message-ID: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128B73AA@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-solmaxrt-update.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-solmaxrt-update.all@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-solmaxrt-update-03
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 11:29:27 -0000

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at


Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-solmaxrt-update-03
Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review Date: 8/25/13
IETF LC End Date: 9/3/13
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary: Ready with minor issues

Major issues: None

Minor issues:

1. My understanding is that although the default values of SOL_MAX_RT and INF_MAX_RT were the same in RFC 3315, and now they are change to similar values, there is no mandatory behavior defined for servers to set them at the same values using the new override options. If this is the case then the Abstract should say 


... override the client's default value for SOL_MAX_RT
   and INF_MAX_RT with a new value.


... override the client's default value for SOL_MAX_RT
   and INF_MAX_RT with new values.

If I am wrong, and the values of the two parameters are always identical at defalult or after changes, then something needs to be said on this respect in Section 8 (DHCPv6 Server Behavior)

2. This is not a document problem but a WG management issue. I could not find anything in the dhc WG charter that corresponds to this document, so I cannot say whether this document meets the conditions of the 'contract with the IESG'. Actually the charter seems not to have been updated for five years, if not more. I guess that with Ralph as an author all is OK, but an update of the charter seems to be needed. 

Nits/editorial comments:

Section 7: 


   a DHCPv6 client MUST silently ignore any SOL_MAX_RT or INF_MAX_RT
   values that are less than 60 or more than 86400.


   A DHCPv6 client MUST silently ignore any SOL_MAX_RT or INF_MAX_RT
   values that are less than 60 or more than 86400.