Re: [Last-Call] [Int-dir] Intdir last call review of draft-ietf-dhc-mac-assign-06

[CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jinmei, Bernie,

Apologies for the belated e-mail. Thanks Jinmei for the review.

I agree with Bernie's responses, thanks for that.

Carlos

On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 9:56 PM Bernie Volz (volz) <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Jinmei.
>
> Thanks much for the review!
>
> Comments below (BV>). Carlos may also have some.
>
> As these are fairly minor, I will queue them up for a -08 as there may be
> more discussion on these comments and/or IESG reviews may raise some
> additional issues.
>
> - Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Int-dir <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Tatuya Jinmei via
> Datatracker
> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 2:30 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject: [Int-dir] Intdir last call review of draft-ietf-dhc-mac-assign-06
>
> Reviewer: Tatuya Jinmei
> Review result: Ready with Nits
>
> I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-dhc-mac-assign.
> These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area
> Directors. Document editors and
> shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat
> comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any
> other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on the
> INT Directorate, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/ .
>
> I've reviewed draft-ietf-dhc-mac-assign-06 (07 was submitted while I was
> reviewing 06, and I also checked 07 on some specific points to see if it's
> changed, but the check is not comprehensive so some comments may be already
> moot or addressed.)  I think this draft is basically ready.  Its purpose
> and protocol details are well written, and the protocol is generally a
> straightforward application of the basic
> DHCPv6 (IP) address assignment protocol as described in RFC8415.  I didn't
> find any obvious problem.
>
> My comments are largely editorial.  The first one for Section 8 may need
> some discussion, but I'd basically leave the authors whether/how to address
> the comments including this one.
>
> Specific comments:
>
> - Section 1:
>
>    The IEEE originally set aside half of the 48-bit MAC Address space
>    for local use (where the U/L bit is set to 1).  In 2017, the IEEE
>    specified an optional specification (IEEE 802c) that divides this
>    space into quadrants (Standards Assigned Identifier, Extended Local
>    Identifier, Administratively Assigned Identifier, and a Reserved
>    quadrant) - more details are in Appendix A.
>
> I wonder whether this paragraph could refer to draft-ietf-dhc-slap-quadrant