Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol-04

Request Review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-01-19
Requested 2017-01-05
Authors Tomek Mrugalski , Kim Kinnear
I-D last updated 2017-02-01
Completed reviews Intdir Early review of -03 by Carlos J. Bernardos (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -04 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -03 by Carlos Pignataro (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Christer Holmberg
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 04 (document currently at 06)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2017-02-01
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team
(Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF
Chair.  Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at



Reviewer:                                        Christer Holmberg

Review Date:                                  01.02.2017

IETF LC End Date:                          19.01.2017

IESG Telechat date: (if known)    02.02.2017

Summary:                                       The document is almost ready for
publication, but there are some editorial nits that I'd like the authors to

Major issues:                                 None

Minor issues:                                 None

Nits/editorial comments:


Q1:        In the first sentence of the Introduction, I suggest to say:

"The failover protocol defined in this document provides..."

Otherwise it's a little unclear what failover protocol you are talking about.

Q2:        In the Introduction, before the first sentence, shouldn't there be
some background text, including some information about the problem that the
document solves. I know there is something in the Abstract, but I think there
should also be something in the Introduction, before jumping into the solution.

Q3:        In the Introduction, I suggest adding a reference to the first
occurrences of "DHCP service" and "DHCP server".

Q4:        In the Introduction, you switch between "This protocol" and "The
failover protocol". Please use consistent terminology. This applies to the
document in general.


Q5:        In the Abstract and Introduction it is said that DHCPv6 does not
provide server redundancy. Then section 4 talks about failover concepts and

Are those concepts something used for DHCPv6 today, but for some reason do not
fulfil the failover protocol requirements?

OR, are these general concepts that will be supported by implementing the
failover protocol?

I think it would be good to have an introduction statement clarifying that.