DHCPv6 Prefix-Length Hint Issues
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-06
Yes
(Suresh Krishnan)
No Objection
(Alexey Melnikov)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Ben Campbell)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Stephen Farrell)
(Terry Manderson)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -05)
Unknown
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2017-02-14 for -05)
Unknown
Thanks for a clear and well-written specification.
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2017-02-14 for -05)
Unknown
Please expand IA_PD on first use.
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2017-02-16 for -05)
Unknown
From the draft: [RFC3633] is unclear about how the client and server should act in different situations involving the prefix-length hint. From the shepherd write-up This document specifies information that is useful to DHCPv6 client and server implementers to support allowing clients to specify a prefix length hint when requested delegated prefixes. It clarifies this concept introduced in RFC 3633. => that implies an UPDATE, no? Obviously, this document publication should go forward (so not a DISCUSS), but I would like to understand why this is not an update. Editorial nit (by Sue Hares, part of her OPS DIR review): Page 3 section 3.1 section under problem. Second paragraph. Second sentence The best way to assure a completely new delegated prefix is to send a new IAID in the IA_PD. IAID – abbreviation has not been indicated prior to this use Old:/IAID/ New: /IAID (IA_PD unique identifier)/
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2017-02-14 for -05)
Unknown
I'm okay with the reasoning for the security considerations section, but think it might be good if a general reference for security of DHCP was listed as well. Since an older RFC is referenced, any references from that one might be out-of-date.
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2017-02-15 for -05)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown