Skip to main content

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 revision 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
Authors Yong Cui , Qiong Sun , Ian Farrer , Yiu Lee , Qi Sun , Mohamed Boucadair
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 revision 06 (document currently at 09)
Result Almost Ready
Completed 2015-04-27
review-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation-06-genart-lc-holmberg-2015-04-27-00

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>

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.