Hi authors, I found this draft generally well written and easy to read but I would like a couple of things fixed in it before I send it off to IETF Last call.
Major ==== * Section 3 "The PvD ID is a Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) which MUST belong to the network operator in order to avoid naming collisions." Which network operator? Can you please clarify this. * Section 3.1 How is the Router Lifetime field processed if the R bit is set and the RA header is included? Is the intent that this will always supersede the “outer” Router Lifetime for PvD aware hosts? In any case this needs to be specified as it is not standard RFC4861 behavior. * Section 3.4.1 Not sure if this is the best way to specify stateful DHCPv6. There are stateful options that will not be under a PIO (e.g. IA_PD). I think this document should limit itself to IA_NA and possibly IA_TA. Leaving this unbounded does not seem to be a good idea. Thoughts? * Section 4.1 "If the host has a temporary address per[RFC4941] in this PvD, then hosts SHOULD use a temporary address to fetch the PvD Additional Information and SHOULD deprecate the used temporary address and generate a new temporary address afterward.” Not sure why this behavior is required. Can you please explain? * Section 5 I was thinking that there needs to be some host behavior to be specified related to the H bit and the sequence number here. If the H bit is set and the sequence number is unchanged from a previous successful query I think the host should refrain from sending another https query. If you agree, this needs to be written down. Minor ===== * Section 1 This text is confusing and self-referential OLD: Since such options are only considered by hosts implementing this specification, network operators may configure hosts that are 'PvD-aware' with PvDs that are ignored by other hosts. Suggest rewording to something like Since such options are only considered by hosts implementing this specification, network operators may configure hosts that are 'PvD-aware' with PvDs that are ignored by other hosts. * Section 3.1 Not sure if the definition of the L flag is correct. Does the router actually need to provide the DHCPv4 information to set this? What if it is just a relay? * Section 4.1 Not sure why there is a reference to RFC8615 here. Editorial ====== * Section 1 OLD: The ability to associate additional informations NEW: The ability to associate additional information OLD: deriving from it NEW: derived from it Thanks Suresh _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
