[Netconf] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-netconf-zerotouch-25: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netconf-zerotouch-25: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-zerotouch/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

* Section 8.1

This should be easy to fix but this text about the cardinality of the option

"Servers MUST NOT send more than one instance of the
OPTION_V4_ZEROTOUCH_REDIRECT option."

is contradictory to the following recommendation to use RFC3396 for long URLs
*which will certainly result* in multiple options being sent. I would like
personally like this to be a qualified MUST NOT (e.g. MUST NOT except for the
long URL case) but I leave it up to the authors and the sponsoring AD to figure
out the best way forward.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

* Please update the DHCPv6 (RFC3315) references to correspond to RFC8415
(Section 18.2 mainly for the client behavior and Section 18.3 for the server
behavior) as it has been obsoleted.

* Thanks for using the DHCPv6 option guidelines properly for the option formats
and cardinality. Greatly appreciated.