Hi all
I've tried to note down several considerable points.
Let me know your view on them if I am missing anything.
If acceptable, I will make a revision once more.
============================================
+ means Concern
- means Considerable mentions from ML
$ means trial efforts on resolving them
[Issue 1]
"Client operation which is set to M-Policy 1 along with 3736 DHCPv6 server"
+ if a full DHCPv6 client is initiated and server is only 3736, the client
get back the
Information Configuration Behaviour ? or sending the Solicit to server
forever ?
- Just indicating that it's host/network admin misconfiguration
- Fall-back behaviour to Information Configuration Behaviour (see Issue
2)
- Updating original DHCPv6 specifications (3315, 3736)
$ Trial: just saying this issue as an admin misconfiguration including
Trial
text of Issue 2.
[Issue 2]
"Parallel operation of HCB and ICB with DHCPv6 specification"
RFC3315 does not preclude a client from initiating an Information-request
/Reply message exchange in parallel with or subsequent to a Solicit
/Advertise/Request/Reply message exchange
+ Breaking the sense of RFC2462 (Section 5.5.3)
- Remaining it as a general issue and simple mention in this document
$ Trial: if a client does not receive any response from DHCPv6 server while
performing Host Configuration Behaviour, the client then begins
Information Configuration Behaviour in parallel with Host
Configuration
Behaviour. It causes a considerable case as non-addresses
configuration since Information Configuration Behaviour does not
include addresses information. The authors remain this issue to
be
resolved in the related working group (probably DHC WG).
[Issue 3]
"Inconsistent M and O flags of RA"
+ Inconsistent RA is a in-scope problem of this document ?
- More describing of why M/O transitions are a bigger problem than
other inconsistent information
$Trial: In the end, it is administrator's responsibility to ensure the
consistency
among Router Advertisement parameters from multiple routers in
the
same single link as described in Section 5.6 of [RFC2462]. The
authors
thus remain "Handling of M and O flags from multiple routers" out
of
scope of this document.
[Issue 4]
"Default policy on M/O flags"
HCB using RFC3315 - M-Policy 2, otherwise M-Policy 3 (HCB is not
implemented)
ICB using RFC3736 - O-Policy 1 or 2
+ Is it fully acceptable ?
$Trial: If not acceptable, please make more comments. !
[Editorial]
+ In the last sentence of Section 12
- s/is different form/is different from/
$Trial: done
+ SEND is now published as an RFC (RFC3971)
$Trial: done
+ if we need an update version of this document (I believe we do),
- we'll need to use the new IPR boilerplate (e.g., with version 1.29 of
xml2rfc)
$Trial: will be done by next version
============================================
Thanks.
---------------------------------------------
Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
Mobile Platform Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
