[dhcwg] Re: Mohamed Boucadair's Yes on draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8 415bis-10: (with COMMENT)

Thanks much!

We have a bunch more issues to handle before we’ll have the “final” version to submit — looks like your additional findings are also good to incorporate. I’ve created https://github.com/dhcwg/rfc8415bis/issues/79 to track them.

- Bernie

> On May 15, 2025, at 8:50 AM, Mohamed Boucadair via Datatracker <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Mohamed Boucadair has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis-10: Yes
> 
> 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Hi Tomek, Bernie, Michael, Sheng, and Tim,
> 
> Thank you for taking care of the DISCUSS and COMMENTs points in [1]. I also
> appreciate the detailed reply to Tim’s comprehensive review [2]. I was waiting
> for a follow-up from Tim before updating by ballot. I will leave it to Éric if
> he can hold publication for some few days. Thanks.
> 
> I checked diff 09/10. I really like the changes. FWIW, some minor “things” I
> sport when reviewing the changes:
> 
> # Section 1.3: More accurate scope of 9243
> 
> OLD: One possible way to manage a DHCPv6 server is proposed in [RFC9243]
> 
> NEW: An approach to manage DHCPv6 relays and servers is specified  in [RFC9243]
> 
> # Section 5
> 
> ## ALL_DHCP_Relay_Agents_and_Servers
> 
> Consider changing it to All_DHCP_Relay_Agents_and_Servers :-)
> 
> ## Naturally inherit whatever updates will be made to RFC8085
> 
> OLD: and BCP 145 [RFC8085]
> 
> NEW: and [BCP145]
> 
> ## Help readers find where DHCP multicast addresses are defined
> 
> For example, consider the following change:
> 
> OLD: All_DHCP_Relay_Agents_and_Servers multicast address
> 
> NEW: All_DHCP_Relay_Agents_and_Servers multicast address (Section 7.1)
> 
> # Section 6.5: nit
> 
> OLD: To meet the recommendations of [RFC7934], A client
> 
> NEW: To meet the recommendations of [RFC7934], a client
> 
> # Section 6.6
> 
> ## nit
> 
> OLD: [RFC9686] introduced a method
> 
> NEW: [RFC9686] introduces a method
> 
> ## minor edit
> 
> OLD: The major difference between other use cases and this is
> 
> NEW: The major specificity of this mechanism is
> 
> # Section 18.2.6: Use the correct option name
> 
> OLD: The relay SHOULD insert a Client Link-Layer option
> 
> NEW: The relay SHOULD insert a Client Link-Layer Address option
> 
> Thank you again for your effort on the maintenance of this important piece.
> 
> Cheers,
> Med
> 
> [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/j7I13uN9pjlSnCoT3Q3_htz7YCo/
> 
> [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/mcUhzp1lh_icTH6fW4F9yqeuGWA/
> 
> 
>

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