Telechat Review of draft-ietf-6man-pio-pflag-10
review-ietf-6man-pio-pflag-10-iotdir-telechat-nordmark-2024-09-30-00

Nit: In the abstract it refers to draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device which
raises two things: 1. I think the rfc-editor doesn't like references in the
abstract, so maybe using english words to instead of the draft name makes
sense. Or defer to rfc-editor to fix this? 2. Should the "model" text in the
abstract refer to RFC8273 instead of the dhcp mechanism draft? The model is
described in RFC8273.

Suggested clarification in section 6: Would it make sense to explicitly state
that a router might need to continue to set the A flag if there might be some
hosts which do not implement this specification on the link?

Clarification in last paragraph in section 7.2: Instead of the last sentence
starting with "Similarly, the host" it would be more clear to start the
paragraph with "The host MUST NOT forward or originate packets" since the
implications and implementation suggestion are identical for the forward and
send/originate cases.

Nit: Section 8 refers to "DHCPv6 relay" but this can be either a DHCPv6 server
or relay as far as I can tell. I don't know if the DHCPv6 specification has a
term which covers both of them.

Question: Has there been any discussion about adding operational considerations
to the document? What I had in mind is the fact that the operator can not
explicitly tell which hosts/routers implement this specification, hence if this
is important the operator needs tools to tell how many PD vs. how many IA_NA
plus SLAAC or DAD probed addresses it sees on the network. If this has not come
up in the WG, or is already covered in some other document, then don't bother.