Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp-09
review-ietf-pcp-dhcp-09-genart-lc-holmberg-2014-03-22-00

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>.

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a
new version of the draft.

Document:                              draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp-09.txt

Reviewer:                               Christer Holmberg

Review Date:                          22 March 2014

IETF LC End Date:                1 April 2014

IESG Telechat date:               N/A



Summary:                               The document is almost ready for
publication. I do have a minor issue, and some editorial change suggestions,
that the authors may want to address.

Major issues: -

Minor issues:



Q1_A

:

The Abstract (and, later, also the Introduction) says: “The use of DHCPv4 or
DHCPv6 depends on the PCP deployment scenario.”

I think this is a little unclear. Would it be possible to add some extra text,
describing in what type of scenarios the mechanism is applicable?



Nits/editorial comments:



Q2_1

:

The Introduction says:

“This specification assumes a PCP server is reachable with one or multiple IP
addresses.  As such, a list of IP addresses can be returned in the PCP server
DHCP option.”

Is that text needed? The document describes how DHCP can be used to return PCP
server IP addresses. If there are no PCP servers, no IP addresses should be
returned :)



Q3_1

:

The Introduction says:

“This specification allows returning one or multiple instances of the PCP
server DHCP option. This is used as a hint to guide the PCP client when
determining whether to send PCP requests to one or multiple PCP servers.
 For guidelines on how a PCP client can use multiple IP addresses and multiple
 PCP servers, see [I-D.ietf-pcp-server-selection].”

Is the 2

nd

 sentence needed? Why not say:

“This specification allows returning one or multiple instances of the PCP
server DHCP option. For guidelines on how a PCP client can use multiple IP
addresses and multiple PCP servers, see [I-D.ietf-pcp-server-selection].”



Q4_2

:

The Terminology says:

“DHCP client (or client)” and “DHCP server (or server)”.

As the document describes two types of clients (DHCP clients and PCP clients)
and two types of servers (DHCP servers and PCP servers) I think the draft text
should always explicitly indicate which type of client/server
 is referred to. I.e. the text should never say “client” or “server”, but
 always indicate whether it’s DHCP or PCP. Most of my subsequent comments are
 related to that.



Q5_3_2

:

In section 3.2, I suggest to change the section name to “DHCPv6 Client
Behavior”.



Q6_3_2

:

In section 3.2, I suggest to say “To discover one or more PCP servers…”.



Q7_3_2

:

In section 3.2, I suggest to say “The DHCPv6 client MUST be prepared…”



Q8_3_2

:

In section 3.2, please add a reference to “IPv4-mapped IPv6 address”.



Q9_4_2

:

See my comments, Q5, Q6, Q7 and Q8, but replace “DHCPv6” with “DHCPv4” :)



Regards,

Christer