Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-07
review-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-07-genart-lc-romascanu-2014-04-28-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6 |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 09) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2014-04-29 | |
| Requested | 2014-04-16 | |
| Authors | Qi Sun , Yong Cui , Marcin Siodelski , Suresh Krishnan , Ian Farrer | |
| I-D last updated | 2014-04-28 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -07
by Dan Romascanu
(diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -07 by Fred Baker (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Dan Romascanu |
| State | Completed | |
| Review |
review-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-07-genart-lc-romascanu-2014-04-28
|
|
| Reviewed revision | 07 (document currently at 09) | |
| Result | Ready with Issues | |
| Completed | 2014-04-28 |
review-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-07-genart-lc-romascanu-2014-04-28-00
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>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-07.txt Reviewer: Dan Romascanu Review Date: 4/28/14 IETF LC End Date: 4/29/14 IESG Telechat date: Summary: Ready, with a few small issues Major issues: None Minor issues: 1. In section 10: When the server receives a DHCPv4-query message from a client, it searches for the DHCPv4 Message option. The server discards the packet without this option. The server MAY notify an administrator about the receipt of a malformed packet. The mechanism for this notification is out of scope for this document. It would be good to clarify the behavior of the server beyond possibly notifying an administrator at the receipt of a malformed packet. Is the packet discarded? 2. I believe that [RFC3527] should rather be a Normative Reference. Even if the use of a Link Selection sub-option is under a ‘may’ – it cannot be implemented unless RFC3527 is read. Nits/editorial comments: In the introduction there is reference to the ‘DHCP leasequery’. Actually in RFC 4388 one can find Leasequery either capitalized (in the title) or ALL-CAPS in the text.