DHCPv6 Prefix-Length Hint Issues
RFC 8168

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

(Suresh Krishnan) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

Comment (2017-02-14 for -05)
No email
send info
Thanks for a clear and well-written specification.

(Deborah Brungard) No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

Comment (2017-02-16 for -05)
No email
send info
From the draft:
   [RFC3633] is unclear about how the client and server should act in
   different situations involving the prefix-length hint. 
From the shepherd write-up
   This document specifies information that is useful to DHCPv6 client
   and server implementers to support allowing clients to specify a
   prefix length hint when requested delegated prefixes. It clarifies
   this concept introduced in RFC 3633.

=> that implies an UPDATE, no?
Obviously, this document publication should go forward (so not a DISCUSS), but I would like to understand why this is not an update.

Editorial nit (by Sue Hares, part of her OPS DIR review):

Page 3 section 3.1 section under problem.  Second paragraph.  Second sentence

The best way to assure a completely new delegated prefix is to send a new IAID in the IA_PD.
IAID – abbreviation has not been indicated prior to this use
New: /IAID (IA_PD unique identifier)/

(Alissa Cooper) No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

(Mirja Kühlewind) No Objection

Comment (2017-02-15 for -05)
No email
send info
I think it would make sense if this doc updates RFC 3633 because someone who (newly) implements RFC 3633 should really also read this document and hance needs this pointer.

Also, I would move section 3.6 to the beginning but that doesn't really matter.

(Terry Manderson) No Objection

(Alexey Melnikov) No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

Comment (2017-02-14 for -05)
No email
send info
I'm okay with the reasoning for the security considerations section, but think it might be good if a general reference for security of DHCP was listed as well.  Since an older RFC is referenced, any references from that one might be out-of-date.

Alvaro Retana No Objection

Comment (2017-02-14 for -05)
No email
send info
Please expand IA_PD on first use.