Re: Very late comments on WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis

Bernie Volz <[email protected]> Tue, 6 Feb 2024 08:52:15 -0500

Newsgroups	gmane.ietf.dhc
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

Hi … have been away. Beginning to catch up. I agree with Tim regarding these comments.

If we reference notification draft, it would likely delay publication of bis document until that one is published which is not a good idea.

I also think that we should not try to reference every dhcpv6 related document - so I don’t see a strong need to reference leasequery or failover. It also makes protocol look more complicated by number of other documents someone may think they need to review. We already have a ton of references.

- Bernie (from iPad)

On Feb 6, 2024, at 8:46 AM, Timothy Winters <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Tomek,

Responded in line.

On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 9:40 AM Tomek Mrugalski <[email protected] > wrote:

Hi,

I'm not sure what's the status of the WGLC is. The deadline has long

passed, but I don't think any wrap up was posted. And the -04 was not

published yet. So perhaps it's not too late?

While we concluded WGLC isn't not too late to make modifications.

Reviewing 130+ pages long document is not a trivial task. I have

compared 8415 text with that latest version of the draft and found no

specific issues with the draft.

I do have a small number of editorial suggestions.

1. SECTION 1: Introduction

Remove "temporary addresses" from the list of resources DHCPv6 can allocate.

Agree.

2. SECTION 4.2: Terminology

The section defines IA mentions IA_NA, IA_TA, and IA_PD. And there's

this text "New IA types may be defined in the future.". IA_LL was

defined in RFC8947. I propose to change the text to:

"One other IA type was defined (see RFC8947) and more may be defined

in the future.".

Agree, this is good idea.

3. Should we add references to other DHCPv6 RFCs?

The text mentions bulk leasequery (Section 19.4), but RFC 5460 is not

referenced. Perhaps we could add a paragraph somewhere (or maybe new

section 1.3?) that mentions DHCPv6 mechanisms: leasequery, bulk

leasequery, active leasequery, IA_LL and failover. On one hand, it would

make the already huge document a tiny bit bigger. On another, we already

have lots of references, so I suspect there will be engineers out there

starting their DHCP journey with this text.

My suggestion is maybe add these to Section 6, 6.6 as it is an operational model? I agree having more information about leasequery is a good idea.

And a follow-up question to 3: If we decide to add them, should we also

mention draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notification? Some people feel it might

become a very popular mechanism. But perhaps referencing a draft is not

something we want to do?

I think it's too early to reference that document.

Any thoughts on this?

With or without those minor edits, I think this document is ready to

move forward.

Tomek

_______________________________________________

dhcwg mailing list

[email protected]

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg