Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery-05

Request Review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-09-08
Requested 2015-08-27
Authors Kim Kinnear, Mark Stapp, Bernie Volz, Neil Russell
Draft last updated 2015-09-06
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -05 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -06 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Taylor Yu (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Christer Holmberg
State Completed
Review review-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery-05-genart-lc-holmberg-2015-09-06
Reviewed rev. 05 (document currently at 07)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2015-09-06


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



Reviewer:                                     Christer Holmberg

Review Date:                               6 September 2015

IETF LC End Date:                       8 September 2015

IETF Telechat Date:                   N/A

Summary:         The document is well written, but I have a few comments and issues I’d like the authors to address.                       

Major Issues: None

Minor Issues: None

Editorial Issues:





The text says that the document updates

RFC 6926, but it is a little unclear to figure out exactly what is updated.

I think it would be good to have an explicit “Update to RFC 6926” section which explains exactly which parts are updated.



The draft talks about “secure mode” and “insecure mode” in a few places, and defined different procedures based on which mode is used.

However, there is no generic definition for “secure mode” and “insecure mode”. I wonder whether it would be useful to add some text somewhere, e.g. to section







The text says: 


“The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv4 (DHCPv4) has been

              extended with a Leasequery capability that allows a requestor to

              request information about DHCPv4 bindings.”


Please indicate in which specification (RFC?) this extension has been done.



Section 1 (Introduction):





The text says:


              “Requirements exist for external entities to keep up to date on the

              correspondence between DHCPv4 clients and their bindings.”


Are these documented requirements, or generic requirements coming from the industry? Please clarify.





The text says:


              “This document updates DHCPv4 Bulk Leasequery [RFC6926] in that it

              specifies the DHCPv4 server should close the TCP connection if…”


Is “should” the correct wording? Section 8.4 contains both MAY, SHOULD and MUST procedures, and I am not quite sure which procedure(s) the text above refers.