Re: [homenet] draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-08

Hi Daniel,

I have a question both for this draft and our "own" Homenet draft

Up until now we've been passing the specification of the DM * Reverse DM 
connections via separate configuration parameters: address/name, port 
number, and transport protocol.

Should we instead be using a DNS URI from 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4501?

That reduces the DM spec to a single parameter that is also extensible 
for the future.

regards,

Daniel Migault wrote on 01/04/2021 18:18:
> Hi Bernie,
>
> I apology for missing that email. Your comments addressed an old 
> version, however most of them applies to the new version.  I think all 
> comments have been addressed on my working local copy and I provide 
> more details on how we addressed them.
>
> I do have one remaining question regarding the IANA section on whether 
> the specific values associated to a field of the DHCP option are part 
> of the IANA section with the creation of a new registry or not.
>
> Please see inline my response for more details.
>
>
> Thanks for the review!
>
> Yours,
> Daniel
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 9, 2021 11:54 AM
> *To:* draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options@ietf.org 
> <draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-08
>
> Hi:
>
> Took a quick look at the document … just a few nits to point out:
>
>  1. You use “Homnet” in 2 places; I think that should be Homenet?
>
> <mglt>
> fixed thanks.
> </mglt>
>
>  2. For the FQDN option data, please make sure you refer to encoding
>     used is specified in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8415#section-10
>
> < <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8415#section-10>mglt>
> thanks, the encoding has been specified for all FQDN data, i.e., the 
> Registered Domain, the Distribusion Master and Reverse Distribution 
> Master.
> </mglt>
>
>  3. In 4.1, the diagram shows “Public Key Data” yet the definition
>     below it has “Client Public Key Data”; fix them to match.
>
> <mglt>
> This has been fixed in the previous version by removing these options.
> </mglt>
>
>  4. Sometimes you indicate the “length” of the data in the options,
>     sometimes you don’t; and “(varaiable)” is used in one place which
>     is misspelled.
>
> <mglt>
> Variable has been fixed. I suppose the these comments has been fixed 
> from the latest version. As far as i can see, the current version has 
> (variable) indicated for all variable fields. and option-len field in 
> each description.
>
> </mglt>
>
>  5. You still reference RFC3315 when current DHCPv6 standard is RFC8415.
>
> <mglt>
> I have updated the reference. Thanks.
> </mglt>
>
>  6. The IANA considerations needs some work. You might see
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dots-server-discovery/15/?include_text=1
>     as an example of a recent very good IANA considerations section.
>
> <mglt>
> I have updated the IANA section. I do have one remaining question.
> One option specifies the the values of a field in a DHCP option. I am 
> wondering if a specific registry needs to be created or not. For now I 
> have assumed yes. The IANA section looks like:
>
> IANA is requested to assign the following new DHCPv6 Option Codes in 
> the registry maintained in: 
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6-parameters/dhcpv6-parameters.xhtml#dhcpv6-parameters-2. 
>
>
> ~~~
> Value Description                   Client ORO     Singleton Option
> TBD1  OPTION_REGISTERED_DOMAIN      Yes            Yes
> TBD2  OPTION_DIST_MASTER            Yes            Yes
> TBD3  OPTION_REVERSE_DIST_MASTER    Yes            Yes
> ~~~
>
> The document also requests a Supported Transport Registry:
>
> ~~~
> Bit | Transport Protocol | Reference
> ----+--------------------+-----------
>  0  | DNS over TLS       |
>  1  | DNS over HTTPS     |
> 2-7 | unallocated        |
> ~~~
>
> </mglt>
>
>   * Bernie
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> homenet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

-- 
regards,
RayH
<https://www.postbox-inc.com/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=siglink&utm_campaign=reach>