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

["Bernie Volz (volz)" <[e-mail]>]

Changes look good (reviewed published draft).

- Bernie (from iPad)

On May 13, 2021, at 11:39 AM, Daniel Migault <[e-mail]> wrote:


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=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of STARK, BARBARA H
Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 9:56 AM
To: '[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>' <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: '[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>' <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; '[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>' <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; '[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>' <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
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
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg


--
Daniel Migault
Ericsson
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg