Re: [Last-Call] [homenet] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-21

Hi Ines,

Thanks for the reviews. We can of course include 7227 and I added the
reference as follows:

This section details the payload of the DHCPv6 options following the
guidelines of {
{?RFC7227}}.

Regarding your second comment, I think what we meant is that the trust
associated with the information obtained via the DHCP option described in
this document is similar to the trust associated with the IP prefix. I
think the texte might be clearer saying:

OLD:
The use of DHCPv6 options provides a similar level of trust as
the one used to provide the IP prefix

NEW:
The trust associated with the information carried by the DHCPv6 Options
described in this document is similar to the one associated with the IP
prefix - when configured via DHCPv6.

The changes can be seen on github:
https://github.com/ietf-homenet-wg/front-end-naming-delegation-dhc-options/blob/master/draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options.md

Yours,
Daniel

On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 12:58 PM Ines Robles via Datatracker <
noreply@ietf.org> wrote:

> Reviewer: Ines Robles
> Review result: Ready with Nits
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
>
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-??
> Reviewer: Ines Robles
> Review Date: 2022-10-04
> IETF LC End Date: 2022-10-04
> IESG Telechat date: 2022-10-20
>
> Summary:
>
> This document defines DHCPv6 options so an Homenet Naming Authority (HNA)
> can
> automatically proceed to the appropriate configuration and outsource the
> authoritative naming service for the home network.
>
> The document is well written and easy to understand.
>
> I have two minor questions as nits.
>
> Major issues: None
> Minor issues: None
> Nits/editorial comments/Questions:
>
> 1- Have you consider in this document RFC 7227- Guidelines for Creating New
> DHCPv6 Options -? If yes, should it be added in the references? If not, why
> not? 2- Page 9: "The use of DHCPv6 options provides a similar level of
> trust as
> the one used to provide the IP prefix." In which features are similar? In
> which
> features are dissimilar?
>
> Thanks for this document,
>
> Ines.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> homenet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>

-- 
Daniel Migault
Ericsson