[homenet] AD review of draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-16

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

As usual, I do my own review before requesting the IETF Last Call for all documents. The intent is to give another polishing pass on the I-D.

For this review, the MD format is used.

Hope this helps

Regards

-éric


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-16

CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some blocking DISCUSS points, some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Stephen Farrel for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus, *but* it lacks the justification of the intended status (and the WGLC was extended to the DHC WG).

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric


## DISCUSS

### Section 4.2 port ?

The DHCP option does not allow to run DoT over a non-standard port. Or if another transport is defined without an associated default port, then there is no way to specify a port.

### Section 6 sub-sections

As there are two IANA requests, please use 2 sub-sections, one per request.

### Section 6 reference

For the request about option codes, in the table add the obvious 'this document' in the to-be-added column 'Reference' + the relevant section number.

### Section 6 registry

s/IANA is requested to maintain a new number space/IANA is requested to create a new registry/

Also follow RFC 8126 section 1.3 (and others) by notably adding a description, the parent grouping (DHC I guess)

### Appendix B and its sub-sections

Please use foo.example to stick to the example TLDs.

## COMMENTS

### Shepherd's review, intended status
Stephen, as noted above, please include some justification for the intended PS status.

### Abstract

An 'agnostic' HNA is only defined in the appendix of the main document and is unclear without this context. Suggest to remove this word.


### Section 2 DOI

Isn't it 'DNS Outsourcing Infrastructure' ?

### Section 2 DOI or DM ?

```
   This document describes how a network can provision the HNA with a
   specific DOI.
```
Is it DOI or DM?

### Section CE or CPE

Please use CPE to be consistent with the companion document.

### Section 4.2 option name

By consistency with section 4.3, should this be OPTION_FORWARD_DIST_MANAGER ?

### Section 4.2 FQDN

Some explanations about the use of a FQDN vs. IP addresses would be welcome.

### Section 4.2.1 flow

As this section is also used by section 4.3, suggestion to move it after section 4.3 as section 4.4

### Section 6 spec required

I am concerned that 'spec required' is enough for such a 16-bit flags field. Should it be 'RFC required' ?

### References

Unsure whether ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation is normative, it is rather informative. Same for RFC 9103 and RFC 7858

### App B

The 1st and 3rd paragraph are quite repetitive.

### Appendix, why here ?

There is little DHCP-related content in the appendix and the scenario would probably be more useful in the companion document.

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues.

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments