Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-requirements-06
review-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-requirements-06-genart-lc-davies-2013-09-11-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-requirements |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 07) | |
Type | IETF Last Call Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2013-07-16 | |
Requested | 2013-07-05 | |
Authors | Tomek Mrugalski , Kim Kinnear | |
I-D last updated | 2015-10-14 (Latest revision 2013-07-19) | |
Completed reviews |
Genart IETF Last Call review of -06
by Elwyn B. Davies
(diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -06 by Scott G. Kelly (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Elwyn B. Davies |
State | Completed | |
Request | IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-requirements by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 06 (document currently at 07) | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2013-09-11 |
review-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-requirements-06-genart-lc-davies-2013-09-11-00
Hi, Tomak and Kim. I had a quick look through -07 and it appeared to have fixed all my quibbles. I see the draft has now been approved - so hopefully it will progress to RFC RSN! Regards, Elwyn On Thu, 2013-07-18 at 19:34 +0200, Tomek Mrugalski wrote: > On 17.07.2013 16:41, Elwyn Davies wrote: > > On s7, item 6: Just a thought so I'll consider it irrelevant. > > > > On the last para of 7, I clearly failed to notice the date on the draft > > for DHCPv4 failover protocol! [The hazards of an infinite archive for > > I-Ds!] So I understand why this probably isn't going to go all the way > > to an inter-operable protocol for either v4 or v6. Perhaps it might be > > worth adding in a few words to explain this (and improve an editorial > > nit I missed): > > OLD: > > Despite the lack of standardization of DHCPv4 failover, the > > coexistence of DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 failover may be taken into > > consideration. In particular, certain features that are common for > > both IPv4 and IPv6, like DNS Update mechanism should be taken into > > consideration. > > NEW: > > Although progress on a standardized inter-operable DHCPv4 failover > > protocol has stalled, vendor-specific DHCPv4 failover protocols > > have been deployed that meet these requirements to a large extent. > > Accordingly it would be appropriate to take into account the likely > > coexistence of DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 failover solutions. In particular, > > certain features that are common to both IPv4 and IPv6 > > implementations, such as any DNS Update mechanism, should be taken into > > consideration to ensure compatible operation. > Hi Elwyn, > > Thanks a lot for your thorough review and comments. The submission tool > is now closed, so I have put an unpublished -07 version here: > https://github.com/tomaszmrugalski/ietf-dhcpv6-fo/ > We will upload it to IETF once the submission tool reopens. > > I hope I didn't miss any comments. Please let me know if I did. > > Tomek >