Dear Christer,

FYI, a new version is now available online. The new version integrates your 
comments. You may double check at this url:

http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?difftype=--hwdiff&url2=draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp-10.txt

Cheers,
Med

De : Christer Holmberg [mailto:christer.holmb...@ericsson.com]
Envoyé : mardi 25 mars 2014 12:06
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; gen-art@ietf.org
Cc : draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp....@tools.ietf.org
Objet : RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp-09

Thanks! :)

That addresses all my issues.

Regards,

Christer

From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> 
[mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com]
Sent: 25. maaliskuuta 2014 12:29
To: Christer Holmberg; gen-art@ietf.org<mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
Cc: 
draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp....@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp....@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp-09

Dear Christer,

Your proposed text reflects exactly the intent. I updated my local copy of the 
draft accordingly.

Thank you for the review.

Cheers,
Med


De : Christer Holmberg [mailto:christer.holmb...@ericsson.com]
Envoyé : mardi 25 mars 2014 09:50
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; gen-art@ietf.org<mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
Cc : 
draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp....@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp....@tools.ietf.org>
Objet : RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp-09

Hi Med,

I am ok with most of your replies, but I still have an issue with the 
deployment scenario statement.

Q1_A:

The Abstract (and, later, also the Introduction) says: "The use of DHCPv4 or 
DHCPv6 depends on the PCP deployment scenario."

I think this is a little unclear. Would it be possible to add some extra text, 
describing in what type of scenarios the mechanism is applicable?

[Med] The decision to use DHCPv4 or DHCPv6 is deployment-specific. The text 
calls out one particular deployment case where dhcpv6 is used to configure an 
IPv4 PCP server (see section 5). It is out of scope of the document to list in 
which cases dhcpv4, dhcpv6, or both will be used to configure pcp servers. I 
suggest to maintain that sentence as it is.

[Christer] RFC 6887 lists different scenarios, and when reading the sentence 
above I get a picture that usage of DHCPv4/DHCPv6 applies specifically to some 
of those scenarios, but not to others.

So, if the applicable scenarios are out of the scope of the document, then you 
should say that. Perhaps something like:

"The use of DHCPv4 or DHCPv6 depends on the PCP deployment scenario. The set of 
deployment scenarios to which use of DHCPv4 or DHCPv6 apply are outside the 
scope of this document."

Regards,

Christer
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Reply via email to