Hi Bernie, Please find the update of the current draft. I am publishing a new version very shortly. Thanks for the review!
Yours, Daniel On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 10:53 AM Bernie Volz (volz) <volz= [email protected]> wrote: > Hi: > > Looking at this primarily from the DHCP perspective ... regarding > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options/, > these DHCPv6 options are formatted properly (as per RFC7227 and standard > practices). > > I just have some nits: > - In 4.2, in the "option-code" description "DM Option" is used (only use). > Probably best if this was replaced with "Distributed Master Option"? (Yes, > DM is used in plenty of other places, but it seems odd to use it here as > the "name" of the option.) <mglt> done</mglt> > Also, "TDB3" in the IANA section does not use "DM". <mglt>changed to TBD2</mglt> > Also, 4.3 "option-code" uses "Reverse Distributed Master Option (TBD4)". > <mglt>changed to TBD3</mglt> > - In 4.3, the "Supported Transport" description says "DM". Should this be > "RDM", as this is the Reverse Distributed Master Server Option? > <mglt>correct, this has been changed to RDM.</mglt> > > And, something to ponder: > - In 5.3, is there any value in potentially allowing a Relay Agent to > supply these options to a server to potentially return to a client via the > RSOO option (RFC6422)? I raise this question as it seems no documents have > mentioned this and there was a case that recently came up where this was > useful for another option, so just want to remind folks that it exists and > to consider whether it could be used for these options. > > > I do plan to take a closer look at the other I-D as well, so may have > additional comments thereafter. > > - Bernie > > -----Original Message----- > From: dhcwg <[email protected]> On Behalf Of STARK, BARBARA H > Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 9:56 AM > To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]> > Cc: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' < > [email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]> > Subject: [dhcwg] WGLC started > > Hi homenet, intarea, dhc, and dprive, > Homenet has started WGLC for > draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation-14 and > draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-12. > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation/ > (Simple Provisioning of Public Names for Residential Networks) > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options/ > (DHCPv6 Options for Home Network Naming Authority) > > We're including intarea, dhc, and dprive to get a slightly wider audience > for the technical aspects of these drafts (dhc is specifically asked to > look at the dhc-options draft). > The drafts do also need some editorial fixing-up. I'll be focusing on that > so the technical experts can focus on the technical aspects. > > I've made the WGLCs for 3 weeks instead of the normal 2. I'm doing this > because > - we're reaching out to WGs that haven't seen this before and asking them > for comments > - there are 2 drafts > - I'm on vacation next week and was getting stressed out by everything I > need to get done by this Friday > > The meeting minutes (from the homenet April 23 interim) list intarea, > dprive, and dhc as other groups to request comments from. Is this the right > list? Are there others? > Please let me know if I should broaden this. > Thx, > Barbara > > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg > > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg > -- Daniel Migault Ericsson
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
