Thank you Christer and Kim! Jari
On 10 Sep 2015, at 21:53, Christer Holmberg <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Kim, > > Thanks for addressing my issues! I am happy with your suggested modifications > :) > > Regards, > > Christer > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kim Kinnear [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 10 September 2015 21:45 > To: Christer Holmberg <[email protected]> > Cc: Kim Kinnear <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery-05 > > > Christer, > > Thank you for the review. My response to each of your issues appears inline, > below. > > On Sep 6, 2015, at 9:16 AM, Christer Holmberg > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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-dhcpv4-active-leasequery-05 >> Reviewer: Christer Holmberg >> Review Date: 6 September 2015 >> IETF LC End Date: 8 September 2015 >> IETF Telechat Date: N/A >> Summary: The document is well written, but I have a few comments and >> issues I'd like the authors to address. >> Major Issues: None >> Minor Issues: None >> Editorial Issues: >> >> General: >> ----------- >> QGEN_1: >> The text says that the document updates RFC 6926, but it is a little unclear >> to figure out exactly what is updated. >> I think it would be good to have an explicit "Update to RFC 6926" section >> which explains exactly which parts are updated. > > I will create a new section, 8.1.1, entitled "Update to RFC 6926", which > will contain the following words: > > In an update to the DHCPv4 Bulk Leasequery protocol [RFC6926] (which > didn't discuss this situation explicitly), if the DHCPv4 server > receives a DHCPv4 message containing a dhcp-message-type option with > a value that is not supported over a TCP connection, it SHOULD close > the TCP connection. > > And I will change the reference in the security section where this > update > is discussed from Section 8.1 to Section 8.1.1 > > >> >> QGEN_2: >> The draft talks about "secure mode" and "insecure mode" in a few places, and >> defined different procedures based on which mode is used. >> However, there is no generic definition for "secure mode" and "insecure >> mode". I wonder whether it would be useful to add some text somewhere, e.g. >> to section 2? > > I will add both of these to Section 2, Terminology: > > o "insecure mode" > > When operating in insecure mode, the TCP connection between the > requestor and DHCPv4 server is not protected in any way. In > addition, the identity of the requestor is not validated by the > server nor is the identity of the server validated by the > requestor. > > o "secure mode" > > When operating in secure mode, the TCP connection between the > requestor and the DHCPv4 server is protected by TLS [RFC5246]. > In addition, the requestor uses the certificates exchanged > between it and the DHCPv4 server while setting up the TLS > connection to validate the identity of the server. The DHCPv4 > server also uses these certificates to validate the identity of > the requestor. > > >> >> Abstract: >> ------------ >> >> QA_1: >> >> The text says: >> >> "The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv4 (DHCPv4) has been >> extended with a Leasequery capability that allows a requestor to >> request information about DHCPv4 bindings." >> >> Please indicate in which specification (RFC?) this extension has been done. > > I will add a reference to RFC 4388 to the abstract. >> >> >> Section 1 (Introduction): >> --------------------------------- >> >> Q1_1: >> >> The text says: >> >> "Requirements exist for external entities to keep up to date on >> the >> correspondence between DHCPv4 clients and their bindings." >> >> Are these documented requirements, or generic requirements coming from the >> industry? Please clarify. > > These requirements are not documented in an RFC. These requirements > have come to us from users of DHCP servers in large service providers. > > In an attempt to clarify this paragraph, I will remove this sentence > and replace it with the one from the abstract, yielding this as the new > paragraph: > > Continuous update of an external requestor with Leasequery data is > sometimes desired. These requestors need to keep up with the > current binding activity of the DHCPv4 server. Keeping up with > these binding activities is termed "active" leasequery. > >> >> >> Q1_2: >> >> The text says: >> >> "This document updates DHCPv4 Bulk Leasequery [RFC6926] in that >> it >> specifies the DHCPv4 server should close the TCP connection >> if..." >> >> Is "should" the correct wording? Section 8.4 contains both MAY, SHOULD and >> MUST procedures, and I am not quite sure which procedure(s) the text above >> refers. > > I will add a reference to the new Section 8.1.1 in the Introduction so > that the reference is clear. > > Regards -- Kim > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
