Domain Suffix Option for DHCPv6
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-dnsdomain-04

IANA Last Call Comment:

Upon approval of this document IANA will register a single option
code in the registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6-parameters

In the subregistry,

DHCP Option Codes

IANA will add:

Value Description
-------- ----------------------
TBD OPTION_DOMAIN_SUFFIX

IANA understands that this is the only IANA Action for this document.

LC comments point to a need to take the document back to the WG, make a number of modifications, and perform a review/discussion with the DNS folks.

Writeup:

1) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the ID and do
  they believe this ID is sufficiently baked to forward to the IESG
  for publication?

Yes and yes.
 
2) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and
  key non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the depth or
  breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

It has been reviewed by several key WG members, but not outside the
WG.  We are not very concerned by this as it is a straightforward
document
 
3) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
  particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
  complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?

No
 
4) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
  you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example,
  perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document,
  or whether there really is a need for it, etc., but at the same
  time these issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has
  indicated it wishes to advance the document anyway.

No

5) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  Does it
  represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
  being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with
  it?

Majority of the group is silent. Several have supported this
document, none have spoken against it. The first last call of revision
00 received several comments. A new wglc was done for revision 02. This
passed the last call. The few responses received were positive, but some
minor  changes were requested. Rev 03 incorporates all the requested
changes.

6) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
  discontent?  If so, please summarize what are they upset about.

No
 
7) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to _all_ of the
  ID nits?  (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html).

Yes, no nits found.
 
8) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
  announcement includes a writeup section with the following
  sections:

  - Technical Summary

The document specifies a DHCPv6 option allowing a DHCPv6 server to
tell a client what domain name suffix to use. A client that wants
to get the domain name must request this option from the server.


  - Working Group Summary

There was consensus for adopting this draft at the wg meeting at
IETF 63. It was shortly after adopted by the working group, and
it went to wglc in Dec 05. It did not pass this call. Based on
comments received and further discussions we ended up with
revision 02. This passed wglc in Apr 06, but some further minor changes
were requested. Revision 03 incorporates all the requested changes.


  - Protocol Quality

The protocol specified in this document specifies a new DHCPv6
option and as there are no special requirements on option encodings
or usage, this should be trivial to implement.