Last Call Review of draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-21
review-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-21-genart-lc-robles-2022-10-04-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 24)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2022-10-04
Requested 2022-09-20
Authors Daniel Migault , Ralf Weber , Tomek Mrugalski
I-D last updated 2022-10-04
Completed reviews Opsdir Last Call review of -20 by Al Morton (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -21 by Ines Robles (diff)
Artart Last Call review of -21 by Bron Gondwana (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -21 by Hilarie Orman (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -21 by Al Morton (diff)
Dnsdir Telechat review of -21 by R. (Miek) Gieben (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Ines Robles
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/uld2ipgAwbN-LgVg9X1VjFAPUYY
Reviewed revision 21 (document currently at 24)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2022-10-04
review-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-21-genart-lc-robles-2022-10-04-00
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

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-??
Reviewer: Ines Robles
Review Date: 2022-10-04
IETF LC End Date: 2022-10-04
IESG Telechat date: 2022-10-20

Summary:

This document defines DHCPv6 options so an Homenet Naming Authority (HNA) can
automatically proceed to the appropriate configuration and outsource the
authoritative naming service for the home network.

The document is well written and easy to understand.

I have two minor questions as nits.

Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments/Questions:

1- Have you consider in this document RFC 7227- Guidelines for Creating New
DHCPv6 Options -? If yes, should it be added in the references? If not, why
not? 2- Page 9: "The use of DHCPv6 options provides a similar level of trust as
the one used to provide the IP prefix." In which features are similar? In which
features are dissimilar?

Thanks for this document,

Ines.