Hi, >I will make all of the changes that you suggest, and have offered details >(indented) below. Note that while I'm willing to make the change you have >discussed in Q3, I don't >actually understand what you would like us to do. > >More below...
INTRODUCTION: >> Q1: In the first sentence of the Introduction, I suggest to say: >> >> “The failover protocol defined in this document provides…” >> >> Otherwise it’s a little unclear what failover protocol you are talking about. > > Sure, good idea. See Q2, immediately below. > >> Q2: In the Introduction, before the first sentence, shouldn’t there >> be some background text, including some information >>about the problem that the document solves. I know there is something in the >>Abstract, but I think there should also be something >>in the Introduction, before jumping into the solution. > > I've been chastised for repeating the abstract in the > introduction, so I was trying to not do that. How about we > start the introduction with: > > "The DHCPv6 protocol [RFC3315] does not provide for server > redundancy. The failover protocol defined in this document > provides a means for cooperating DHCP servers to work together > to provide a DHCP service with availability that is increased > beyond that which could be provided by a single DHCP server > operating alone. ..." Looks very good. I know some people don't want to repeat Abstract text in the Introduction, but I still think the Introduction should provide an introduction to the problem :) > Note that the last sentence of the Introduction already points > to the DHCPv6 failover requirements RFC, which has a lot more > to say about this. > >> Q3: In the Introduction, I suggest adding a reference to the first >> occurrences of “DHCP service” and “DHCP server”. > > While I'm more than happy to do this, I don't actually know > what you would like me to reference? We haven't defined > either "DHCP service" or "DHCP server" in the glossary since > we felt they were reasonably apparent from the context of this > document. Are you thinking that we should reference RFC3315 > on the first occurrence of "DHCP service" and "DHCP server"? Yes. >> Q4: In the Introduction, you switch between “This protocol” and “The >> failover protocol”. Please use consistent terminology. This applies to the >> document in general. > > Ok, we'll go with "The failover protocol" since it appears > more times so far. I will make this global change when I > next update the document. Sounds good. >> SECTION 4: >> >> Q5: In the Abstract and Introduction it is said that DHCPv6 does not >> provide server redundancy. Then section 4 talks about failover concepts and >> mechanism. >> >> Are those concepts something used for DHCPv6 today, but for some reason do >> not fulfil the failover protocol requirements? >> >> OR, are these general concepts that will be supported by implementing the >> failover protocol? >> >> I think it would be good to have an introduction statement clarifying that. > > The concepts and mechanisms discussed in Section 4 relate to > the failover protocol, they aren't present in the regular > RFC3315(et. al.) DHCPv6 protocol. I will add the following to > Section 4 to clarify that: > > "4. Failover Concepts and Mechanisms > > The following concepts and mechanisms are necessary to the operation > of the failover protocol, and they are not currently employed by > the DHCPv6 protocol [RFC3315]. That's better. But, will the failover protocol provide support for those concepts? If so, please indicate it. Thanks! Regards, Christer _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
