[dhcwg] Comments for WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv 6-ra

Hi:
As I am the assigned document shepherd and will need to write up the shepherding document for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-ra,here are my review comments for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-ra-01. This review is mostly in the order that the issues appear in the document and reflects comments based on being the document shepherd, not a working group chair. 

Section 1:

I didn’t really find the “L3RA” abbreviation being used in any documents other than this and related material (it has creeped in a few other places, but no in RFCs that I could find. Perhaps it should be better defined (first use) and added to definitions (section 2). I think this primarily comes up to contrast it from LDRA (Lightweight DHCP Relay Agent).
Decapsulation is misspelled (as decapsultion).
Section 1.1: 

“a DHCP client [that] conforms”? Add that?
Section 2:

In DHCP definition, change “referres” to “refers”?
See above (Section 1) about L3RA?
Section 3:

In paragraph 5, “as a normal DHCPv6 Relay Agent [as in] Section 6”. Add as in or something similar as seems to be missing something here.
In paragraph 7, “When [a] DHCPV4-RESPONSE”, add “a”? And, change “DHCPv4-response” to “DHCPV4-RESPONSE”?
Section 3.2:

In paragraph 2, why reference RFC3315 instead of RFC8415 as in all other places? I understand that RFC7341 pre-dates RFC8415, but not really sure that using 3315 adds anything here?
In paragraph 6, something happened here as why is there a period after DHCPv4 … perhaps this was supposed to be a comma?
In paragraph 7, would “Moving 4o6 into” be better?
In paragraph 10, something happened here as “where the while The Relay” doesn’t make any sense. Please fix – perhaps remove “The”? 
Section 5:

Why use “Relay agent” here where all other places “Relay Agent” was used. Perhaps you mean to just us “relay agent”? 
Appendix A: 

What does “Russia” have to do this this? Perhaps an “RU” got changed to Russia?
 

Further, in viewing the shepherd questions, please consider:

What is the intended RFC status? Currently, it is standards track but is this really needed as there are really no “standards” here? Could this be Informational?
As nothing new is needed (no IANA actions), has this been implemented / used yet? This would be helpful to know to confirm that it is complete? Not sure how this might be reflected in the document, but indicating it somehow could improve its chances to make it out of the process?


I don’t think you need to rush out to address all of these issues during the WGLC – we can address them post that period and combine with all other comments. 

With regards to a position on the WGLC itself (as a WG participant and not as chair), I don’t have any reservations about seeing the document move forward and believe it could be useful in cases where changing large number of clients is problematic.

Bernie Volz

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]