Re: [Int-area] [dhcwg] WGLC started -- draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-12

Hi Bernie,

Please find the update of the current draft. I am publishing a new version
very shortly. Thanks for the review!

Yours,
Daniel

On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 10:53 AM Bernie Volz (volz) <volz=
40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Hi:
>
> Looking at this primarily from the DHCP perspective ... regarding
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options/,
> these DHCPv6 options are formatted properly (as per RFC7227 and standard
> practices).
>
> I just have some nits:
> - In 4.2, in the "option-code" description "DM Option" is used (only use).
> Probably best if this was replaced with "Distributed Master Option"? (Yes,
> DM is used in plenty of other places, but it seems odd to use it here as
> the "name" of the option.)

<mglt> done</mglt>

> Also, "TDB3" in the IANA section does not use "DM".

 <mglt>changed to TBD2</mglt>

> Also, 4.3 "option-code" uses "Reverse Distributed Master Option (TBD4)".
>
<mglt>changed to TBD3</mglt>

> - In 4.3, the "Supported Transport" description says "DM". Should this be
> "RDM", as this is the Reverse Distributed Master Server Option?
>
<mglt>correct, this has been changed to RDM.</mglt>

>
> And, something to ponder:
> - In 5.3, is there any value in potentially allowing a Relay Agent to
> supply these options to a server to potentially return to a client via the
> RSOO option (RFC6422)? I raise this question as it seems no documents have
> mentioned this and there was a case that recently came up where this was
> useful for another option, so just want to remind folks that it exists and
> to consider whether it could be used for these options.
>
>
> I do plan to take a closer look at the other I-D as well, so may have
> additional comments thereafter.
>
> - Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcwg <dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of STARK, BARBARA H
> Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 9:56 AM
> To: 'homenet@ietf.org' <homenet@ietf.org>
> Cc: 'dhcwg@ietf.org' <dhcwg@ietf.org>; 'dns-privacy@ietf.org' <
> dns-privacy@ietf.org>; 'int-area@ietf.org' <int-area@ietf.org>
> Subject: [dhcwg] WGLC started
>
> Hi homenet, intarea, dhc, and dprive,
> Homenet has started WGLC for
> draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation-14 and
> draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-12.
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation/
> (Simple Provisioning of Public Names for Residential Networks)
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options/
> (DHCPv6 Options for Home Network Naming Authority)
>
> We're including intarea, dhc, and dprive to get a slightly wider audience
> for the technical aspects of these drafts (dhc is specifically asked to
> look at the dhc-options draft).
> The drafts do also need some editorial fixing-up. I'll be focusing on that
> so the technical experts can focus on the technical aspects.
>
> I've made the WGLCs for 3 weeks instead of the normal 2. I'm doing this
> because
> - we're reaching out to WGs that haven't seen this before and asking them
> for comments
> - there are 2 drafts
> - I'm on vacation next week and was getting stressed out by everything I
> need to get done by this Friday
>
> The meeting minutes (from the homenet April 23 interim) list intarea,
> dprive, and dhc as other groups to request comments from. Is this the right
> list? Are there others?
> Please let me know if I should broaden this.
> Thx,
> Barbara
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>

-- 
Daniel Migault
Ericsson