Lightweight DHCPv6 Relay Agent
RFC 6221

[Ballot comment]
In Section 5.1 you specify that three parameters are needed, but only talk about two of them. I would suggesting adding text that says peer address needs to be set as specified in Section 6.1.

In Section 6.1, you should specify what traffic pattern (UDP, DHCPv6 port number, destination address = all DHCPv6 servers)? you are looking for. Similar text already exists for the other direction in Section 6.2. And then there is some text about what pattern to use in the client=>network direction in Section 7... IMO that's in the wrong place.

[Ballot discuss]
This is a DISCUSS-DISCUSS which may turn into an actionable DISCUSS.

4.  Server Considerations

  This document updates the behavior specified in section 11 of DHCP
  for IPv6 [RFC3315].  RFC3315 states, in part:

  o  If the server receives the message from a forwarding relay agent,
      then the client is on the same link as the one to which the
      interface, identified by the link-address field in the message
      from the relay agent, is attached.

  DHCP server implementations conforming to this specification must,
  for the purposes of address selection, ignore any link-address field
  whose value is zero.  In the text from RFC3315 above, "link-address"
  refers both to the link-address field of the Relay-forward message,
  and also the link-address fields in any Relay-forward messages that
  may be nested within the Relay-forward message.

It is not clear to me if the change in the server behavior described in this section is descriptive or normative. If normative the 'must' in 'DHCP server implementations conforming to this specification must ... ignore any link-address field ...' needs to be a 2119 capitalized MUST.

  (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
        Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
        document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
        version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

I (Ted Lemon ) am the shepherd for this document.
I have personally reviewed the document, and I think it is ready to
forward to the IESG for publication.

  (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
        and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
        any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
        have been performed? 

The document has been carefully reviewed by several experienced DHCP
implementors.  I have no concerns that the document has not had
adequate review.

  (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
        needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
        e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
        AAA, internationalization or XML?

This document is DHCP-specific, and doesn't really make use of
non-DHCP terminology.  I think that the usual review that the IESG
gives to documents of this type should be sufficient to capture any
unclear use of terminology that wasn't immediately obvious in the DHC
working group.

  (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
        issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
        and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
        or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
        has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
        event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
        that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
        concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
        been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
        disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
        this issue.

I am not aware of any IPR concerns, and none have been registered with
the IETF.

  (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
        represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
        others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
        agree with it? 

Consensus is strong.

  (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
        discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
        separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
        should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
        entered into the ID Tracker.)

There was no dissent in the last call.

  (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
        document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
        and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
        not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
        met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
        Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

idnits doesn't show any problems.  There are no MIBS or URIs in the document.

  (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
        informative? Are there normative references to documents that
        are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
        state? If such normative references exist, what is the
        strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
        that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
        so, list these downward references to support the Area
        Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

There are no downward normative references.  There is one downward
informative reference, to an equivalent document for DHCPv4.  Work on
that document is ongoing in the working group.

  (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
        consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
        of the document? If the document specifies protocol
        extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
        registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
        the document creates a new registry, does it define the
        proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
        procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
        reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
        document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
        conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
        can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

There are no new namespaces or codes defined in this document.

  (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
        document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
        code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
        an automated checker?

The document doesn't contain any such sections.

  (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
        Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
        Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the
        "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
        announcement contains the following sections:

    Technical Summary
This document proposes a Lightweight DHCPv6 Relay Agent (LDRA)
that is used to insert relay agent options in DHCPv6 message
exchanges identifying client-facing interfaces.  The LDRA can
be implemented in existing access nodes (such as DSLAMs and
Ethernet switches) that do not support IPv6 control or routing
functions.

    Working Group Summary
This document appeared in the working group at the end of
2008.  There has been substantial interest in this document..

    Document Quality
The document has undergone careful review, and the working
group is satisfied with its quality.

    Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the
Responsible Area Director?  If the document requires IANA
experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
in this document are .'

The document shepherd is Ted Lemon .  I believe
the responsible A-D is Ralph Droms.