Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp-09

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Thanks! :)

That addresses all my issues.

Regards,

Christer

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: 25. maaliskuuta 2014 12:29
To: Christer Holmberg; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp-09

Dear Christer,

Your proposed text reflects exactly the intent. I updated my local copy of the draft accordingly.

Thank you for the review.

Cheers,
Med


De : Christer Holmberg [mailto:[e-mail]]
Envoyé : mardi 25 mars 2014 09:50
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc : [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Objet : RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp-09

Hi Med,

I am ok with most of your replies, but I still have an issue with the deployment scenario statement.

Q1_A:

The Abstract (and, later, also the Introduction) says: "The use of DHCPv4 or DHCPv6 depends on the PCP deployment scenario."

I think this is a little unclear. Would it be possible to add some extra text, describing in what type of scenarios the mechanism is applicable?

[Med] The decision to use DHCPv4 or DHCPv6 is deployment-specific. The text calls out one particular deployment case where dhcpv6 is used to configure an IPv4 PCP server (see section 5). It is out of scope of the document to list in which cases dhcpv4, dhcpv6, or both will be used to configure pcp servers. I suggest to maintain that sentence as it is.

[Christer] RFC 6887 lists different scenarios, and when reading the sentence above I get a picture that usage of DHCPv4/DHCPv6 applies specifically to some of those scenarios, but not to others.

So, if the applicable scenarios are out of the scope of the document, then you should say that. Perhaps something like:

"The use of DHCPv4 or DHCPv6 depends on the PCP deployment scenario. The set of deployment scenarios to which use of DHCPv4 or DHCPv6 apply are outside the scope of this document."

Regards,

Christer