Please change this:

   The AFTR-Name option consists of option-code and option-len fields
   (as all DHCPv6 options have), and a variable length tunnel-endpoint-
   name field, containing a partially qualified host name or fully
   qualified domain name that refers to the AFTR the client is asked to
   connect to.

To this:

   The AFTR-Name option contains a single fully-qualified domain name,
   the tunnel-endpoint name field.   This name may be fully- or partially-
   qualified, and specifies the AFTR to which the client is is expected to
   connect.

My reason for asking for this change is that the text as it appears in the 
document says more than is necessary (presumably any DHCP client or server 
implementation already knows how to construct or unpack a DHCP option), and the 
extra text obscures the essence of the specification.

Please change this:

   The OPTION_AFTR_NAME option MAY appear in the root scope of a DHCPv6
   packet.  It MUST NOT appear inside any IA_NA, IA_TA, IA_PD, IAADDR,
   or similar.  Any OPTION_AFTR_NAME option received inside any other
   option MUST be ignored.

   The OPTION_AFTR_NAME option MUST NOT appear more than once in a
   message.  Clients that receive more than one OPTION_AFTR_NAME options
   MUST discard all instances of that option, acting as if none were
   sent.

To this:

   The OPTION_AFTR_NAME option is only valid in the root scope of a DHCPv6
   packet.  Any OPTION_AFTR_NAME option received inside any other
   option SHOULD be ignored.

   DHCP servers SHOULD send a maximum of one OPTION_AFTR_NAME option.  Client
   behavior in the event that a server returns more than one such option is
   undefined.

My reason for requesting this change is that DHCP option specifications should 
not place new and arbitrary requirements on DHCP servers and clients to enforce 
particular behaviors.   It is an administrative error to configure more than 
one AFTR option, or to configure it in such a way that it is not returned in 
the root scope.   It is sufficient to say that this won't work--it is not 
necessary to place onerous new requirements on DHCP clients and servers.

Please delete the following text from section 4, for the same reason:

   A DHCPv6 server MUST NOT send more than one OPTION_AFTR_NAME option.

   A DHCPv6 server MUST NOT send the OPTION_AFTR_NAME option as a
   suboption in other options; it MUST appear only in the root scope of
   any DHCPv6 messages made in response to clients (Reply, Advertise, et
   al).


   A client that supports the B4 functionality of DS-Lite (defined in
   [I-D.softwire-ds-lite]) and conforms to this specification MUST
   include OPTION_AFTR_NAME on its OPTION_ORO.

What if the client doesn't send an ORO?

   Because it requires DNS name to address resolution, and the use of
   the domain-search path, a client MAY also wish to include the
   OPTION_DNS_SERVERS and OPTION_DOMAIN_LIST options on its OPTION_ORO.

You might want to phrase this differently:

   DHCP clients requesting this option SHOULD also request the 
OPTION_DNS_SERVERS
   and OPTION_DOMAIN_LIST options, since these will be required to resolve the
   provided FQDN.

Please delete this text, since it inappropriately specifies new behavior for 
DHCP clients:

   If the client receives the OPTION_AFTR_NAME option, it MUST verify
   the option contents as described in Section 3.

   If the client receives more than one OPTION_AFTR_NAME option, it MUST
   discard all instances of that option.

Here, wouldn't it be easier just to say that if there is no '.' label (the 
zero-length label) at the end of the name, you have to use the domain search 
list?

   If the tunnel-endpoint-name field has less than or equal to 2 labels
   (not including the terminating zero-length label), the client (B4)
   iterates through any configured domain-search [RFC3646] path.

Thanks for publishing the new draft--sorry for all these additional edits at 
this late date.

_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

Reply via email to