Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation-06
review-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation-06-genart-lc-holmberg-2015-04-27-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-05-06
Requested 2015-04-23
Draft last updated 2015-04-27
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -06 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -07 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Christer Holmberg
State Completed
Review review-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation-06-genart-lc-holmberg-2015-04-27
Reviewed rev. 06 (document currently at 09)
Review result Almost Ready
Review completed: 2015-04-27

Review
review-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation-06-genart-lc-holmberg-2015-04-27






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-dynamic-shared-v4allocation-06




Reviewer:                                     Christer Holmberg




Review Date:                               27 April 2015




IETF LC End Date:                       6 May 2015




IETF Telechat Date:                   N/A




Summary:                                     The document is well written, and almost ready for publication. However, I have spotted a few places where I think
 some additional text is needed.




Major Issues: None




Minor Issues: None




Editorial Issues:




 




Section 2:







Q_2_1:







The text says that the solution is not applicable for network access over shared mediums.








I think it would be useful to add some words describing why that is the case.




 




Section 10:




                             Q_10_1:




                             The text says: “The security considerations in [RFC2131] and [RFC7341] are to be considered.”




                             I think a little more text is needed, talking about what type of security considerations are referenced.




 




                             Q_10_2:







In section 10.1, I don’t think you need to refer to section 2 for the target use-case. Similar to my comment Q_2_1, you should give a little more information about the DoS attack vulnerability in a shared medium.