Dan - thanks for your review. On Aug 25, 2013, at 7:29 AM, "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <droma...@avaya.com> wrote:
> > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, > please see the FAQ at > > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may > receive. > > Document: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-solmaxrt-update-03 > Reviewer: Dan Romascanu > Review Date: 8/25/13 > IETF LC End Date: 9/3/13 > IESG Telechat date: (if known) > > Summary: Ready with minor issues > > Major issues: None > > Minor issues: > > 1. My understanding is that although the default values of SOL_MAX_RT and > INF_MAX_RT were the same in RFC 3315, and now they are change to similar > values, there is no mandatory behavior defined for servers to set them at the > same values using the new override options. If this is the case then the > Abstract should say > > OLD: > > ... override the client's default value for SOL_MAX_RT > and INF_MAX_RT with a new value. > > NEW: > > ... override the client's default value for SOL_MAX_RT > and INF_MAX_RT with new values. > > If I am wrong, and the values of the two parameters are always identical at > defalult or after changes, then something needs to be said on this respect in > Section 8 (DHCPv6 Server Behavior) Dan, your understanding that SOL_MAX_RT and INF_MAX_RT are allowed to have independent values is correct. The document originally addressed SOL_MAX_RT and I missed the text you cite when I updated the doc to include INF_MAX_RT. I'll make your suggested changes in the next rev of the doc. > > 2. This is not a document problem but a WG management issue. I could not find > anything in the dhc WG charter that corresponds to this document, so I cannot > say whether this document meets the conditions of the 'contract with the > IESG'. Actually the charter seems not to have been updated for five years, if > not more. I guess that with Ralph as an author all is OK, but an update of > the charter seems to be needed. > In my opinion, this document falls under the following clause of the dhc WG charter: However, the DHC WG can in some cases develop its own options that relate to either maintenance of existing specifications or improvements in the operation of the DHCP infrastructure itself. Regarding the charter more generally, the WG is currently in the process of rechartering. Tomek and Bernie can add detail or correct me... > > Nits/editorial comments: > > Section 7: > > OLD: > > a DHCPv6 client MUST silently ignore any SOL_MAX_RT or INF_MAX_RT > values that are less than 60 or more than 86400. > > > New: > > A DHCPv6 client MUST silently ignore any SOL_MAX_RT or INF_MAX_RT > values that are less than 60 or more than 86400. Thanks for catching that typo. > > > Regards, > > Dan - Ralph > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
