Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dhc-client-id-
review-ietf-dhc-client-id-genart-lc-dupont-2012-10-22-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-dhc-client-id
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2012-10-23
Requested 2012-10-11
Authors Narasimha Swamy, Gaurav Halwasia, Unit Sez
Draft last updated 2012-10-22
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -?? by Francis Dupont
Genart Last Call review of -?? by Francis Dupont
Assignment Reviewer Francis Dupont
State Completed
Review review-ietf-dhc-client-id-genart-lc-dupont-2012-10-22
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2012-10-22

Review
review-ietf-dhc-client-id-genart-lc-dupont-2012-10-22

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

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-dhc-client-id-06.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20121018
IETF LC End Date: 20121017
IESG Telechat date: 20121025

Summary: Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None (even some questions below could be promoted to issues)

Nits/editorial comments:
 There is no real justification: I had to read the first WGLC text to
 find the reason behind: there was a bug in RFC 2131.

 - Abstract page 1 and 1 page 4:
    return client identifier' option ->
    return 'client identifier' option

 - ToC page 3 and 6 page 6: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments

 - 1 page 4: DHCP server allocate -> DHCP servers allocate ?

 - 2 page 4: a combination of ... and ... constitute ... and are ... ->
  constitutes ... is (i.e., combination is the subject)?

 - 2 page 4: need not be unique -> are not required to be unique?

 - 3 page 5: the draft proposed to change "MUST NOT" into "MUST",
  perhaps it is enough to change them into "SHOULD"? (note this
  question comes from the lack of justification, and the use of
  loose terms as "update" or (worse) "clarify" in place of "fix"
  or "errata"... I.e., if you are convinced there was a bug the
  right fix is "MUST")

 - 7 page 6: RFC 3315 should IMHO be an informative reference

 - Authors' Addresses pages 6 and 7: extra spaces before ZIP codes?

Regards

Francis.Dupont at fdupont.fr