Skip to main content

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 Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2013-07-16
Requested 2013-07-05
Authors Tomek Mrugalski , Kim Kinnear
Draft last updated 2013-09-11
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -06 by Elwyn B. Davies (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Scott G. Kelly (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Elwyn B. Davies
State Completed
Review review-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-requirements-06-genart-lc-davies-2013-09-11
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
>