[mif] Comments on draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-id-01

[Steven Barth <[e-mail]>]

Hello everyone,

below a few comments for the MPVD ID draft.


3 I'm unsure about the id-length field. It seems entirely redundant for e.g.
DHCP(v6) purposes and even considering e.g. RAs it is redundant for half of
the given id-types. Should this be type-specfic instead?


3 I'm unsure if cross references to the draft that in turn references this
one are wise, also wrt. informative / normative reference sections.


3 id-type
Encoding and / or allowed lengths are entirely unclear for most types you declare.
Are they supposed to be strings, BE integers, ...? How big are they supposed to be?
Shall I be able to use 16, 32 or maybe even 24bit numbers for representing the OID?

0x04: RFC 4282 specifies the assignment of NAI Realms to be tied to domain names,
so this type seems mostly redundant since you alreay have FQDN.

0x06: This looks overly specific to me. Why not have a generic (unicast) prefix type,
so people could also use their RIPE / ARIN / ... assigned UC addresses? E.g. prefix
length followed by arbitrary length ipv6 prefix.



4 What if I want to use this outside a configuration protocol?

4 Undefined reference to "PVD container option"

In general 4 seems awkward / misplaced here, since you are defining an abstract identifier.



Cheers,

Steven