Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dhc-access-network-identifier-08

Request Review of draft-ietf-dhc-access-network-identifier
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 13)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-06-09
Requested 2015-05-28
Authors Shwetha Bhandari, Sri Gundavelli, Mark Grayson, Bernie Volz, Jouni Korhonen
Draft last updated 2015-06-05
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -08 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -10 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Catherine Meadows (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Al Morton (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Francis Dupont
State Completed
Review review-ietf-dhc-access-network-identifier-08-genart-lc-dupont-2015-06-05
Reviewed rev. 08 (document currently at 13)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2015-06-05


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at


Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-dhc-access-network-identifier-08.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20150601
IETF LC End Date: 20150609
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:
 - ToC page 2 and 10 page 16: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments
  (BTW you wrote behavior, not behaviour, so please keep US spelling :-)

 - 3 page 5: I was looking for the RFC 2119 reference there but
  it was just after the Abstract. So I went to the RFC-Editor webpages
  to read what the last RFC Style Guide says: the requirement language
  section is supposed to be in the body (vs headers) after the introduction
  (i.e., exactly where I expected to find it :-).
  Note it doesn't really matter and if something needs to be fixed it is
  more likely the tool you used...

 - 4.3.1 page 7: Identifier[ANI].
                           ^ insert a space here

 - 4.4.2 page 10: Ex: -> e.g.,

 - 4.4.2 page 10: the DNS encoding is a bit ambiguous because there are
  (too) many things in RFC 1035. I think you mean the wire format (vs
  text format) but perhaps it should be better to be more accurate in
  the wording?

 - 7 page 14 (twice): must -> MUST.

 - 7 page 14: I suggest to change:
    ... When generating a response, the server echoes
   back Relay Agent Information options


    ... When generating a response, the server SHALL
   echo back Relay Agent Information options

 - 9 page 15: And, [RFC3118] and [RFC3315] -> [RFC3118] and [RFC3315]

 - 9 page 15: draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-07.txt is under IESG review,
  perhaps will be published before your document, and obsoletes
  a part of the argument (unfortunately not the "in active use"
  even the day before my review I finished the code of a secure DHCPv6
  prototype :-).

 - authors' addresses pages 17 and 18: no uniformity in the case of
  country names (The UPU says upper case but this doesn't apply to
  I-Ds/RFCs... The RFC-Editor will fix addresses).


Francis.Dupont at

PS for native English speakers: is unsecure proper English? My speller
says insecure and unsecured are but not unsecure.