Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery-05
review-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery-05-genart-lc-holmberg-2015-09-06-00

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>

Document:

draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery-05

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:



General:

-----------

QGEN_1:

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.



QGEN_2:

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
 2?



Abstract:

------------



QA_1:



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):

---------------------------------



Q1_1:



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.





Q1_2:



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.