DHCPv6 Relay Agent Echo Request Option
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-ero-01

[Ballot comment]
I believe the document should indicate that this extension is required to support
stateless relay agents.  Otherwise, it is left to the reader to guess about the rationale.

IANA Last call Comments:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the
following assignments in the "DHCPv6 and DHCPv6 options
- per [RFC3315]" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6-parameters

sub-registry "DHCP Option Codes"

TDB OPTION_ERO [RFC-dhc-dhcpv6-ero-01]

We understand the above to be the only IANA Action for
this document.

AD review results:

This is a heads-up that I have done my AD review on this draft
and found no issues. I will however request an IP Directorate
review for it before going to IETF Last Call. Stay tuned.

Brian Haberman reviewed this for IPDIR:

For the most part, this draft looks good and pretty much ready to
publish.  I just have a few comments/questions and those may be more due
to being involved in DHC at all.

1. Section 5, 1st paragraph : It states that ERO processing SHOULD be
done after other processing.  Are there known reasons for not following
the SHOULD?  I would like to see justification for a SHOULD rather than
a MUST.

2. Section 5, bullet (a) : Is it possible for the option to exist in the
reply already, but with a different value?  If so, should the conflict
be checked/flagged/remedied?

3. Section 5, bullet (b) : If the option was not in the Relay-Forward
message, why would the server be considering it?