Re: [mif] Review of draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-ndp-support-01

[Ian Farrer <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jouni,

Please see one comment below.

Also, on looking through the draft again, in Figure 1, the convention for DHCP container options is to have an ‘encapsulated options’ field, but there isn’t one in the diagram. Is this intentional?


> 
>> 
>> But, para 2 of section 3 says that the RA can also include the PVD_CO. What is this for? Do the requested
>> PVD_IDs need to be in a container, or are they listed directly in the RS options (or are both allowed)?
> 
> s/RA/RS
> 
> If the solicitator wants to sign the PVD-ID it solicits for then the container is needed.
> 

[if] OK. That’s not clear from the current text. Can you add text to clarify when the PVD_CO is/isn’t necessary?

Actually, a section that describes the PVD RS & RA process might be the clearest way of pulling this together in one place.

Cheers,
Ian