Subject: [dhcwg] Re: WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-mipadvert-opt-01.txt

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 06:26:18 -0400

Comment on draft-ietf-dhc-mipadvert-opt-01.txt:

What are the precise rules for sending and receiving these options?  In
which messages does a client or a server send these options?  For example:

   * The client MAY include the Network Access Identifier sub-option in a
     DHCPDISCOVER message
   * The server MUST include the Network Access Identifier sub-option from
     the client in a DHCPDISCOVER message (always? only if the server used
     the sub-option in selecting client parameters?)
   * The client MUST include thje Network Access Identifier sub-option in a
     DHCPREQUEST message if it included it in the DHCPDISCOVER message
   * The server MUST include the Network Access Identifier sub-option in a
     DHCPACK message

Can these sub-options be used in DHCPINFORM messages?

In section 6, add a request to IANA to maintain a registry for the
sub-options in this option.  See the IANA considerations of RFC 3315 for an
example of such a request.

Nits:

In the first sentence of the section "Status of this Memo", change "in full
conformance with" to "subject to", in accordance with "Guidelines to Authors
of Internet-Drafts" (1id-guidelines.txt).

In the fourth paragraph of the section "Status of this Memo", reformat to
avoid breaking "http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt" across two lines.

In the Abstract, delete "new" in the first sentence.

If this option applies only to IPv4, mention it in the "Introdcution".  It
might be good to mention RFC 2131 in the "Introduction", too.

Separate section "2 Terminology" into "2.1 Requirements Terminology" and
"2.2 Mobile IP Terminology".  A reference to terminology in RFC 2131 might
be appropriate, too.

In section 3.3, under the format of the Mobility Agent Accouncement
sub-option, in list entry "Agent IP Address", change "trough" to "through".

In the same list, is the entry "Reserved-0" needed?  I don't see a field
labeled "Reserved-0".

Mention somewhere in the draft that discussion about the draft should be
sent to [email-masked].

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:28:20 +0200

Thanks for the review, Ralph.

These seems to be good points, all of them. I'm aiming to have a new
draft version fixing these and the points mentioned by Kuntal out by
the end of the week.  Comments to the individual points below.

	Henrik

Monday 20 October 2003, Ralph wrote:
>    * The client MUST include the Network Access Identifier sub-option in a

Right. This should be covered, and not only for the Network Access Identifier
sub-option, but for all of them. For the NAI sub-option, I think that for
the above four sample points, the appropriate choices are

	a - spot on
	b - only if nai used by server (though I think you mean DHCPOFFER here,
	    not DHCPDISCOVER)
	c - spot on
	d - don't know; I'd say yes but I'm not sure about tradeoffs and practice
	
> Can these sub-options be used in DHCPINFORM messages?

NAI sub-option yes, advertisement sub-options no. Will clarify.

> example of such a request.

Right.

> of Internet-Drafts" (1id-guidelines.txt).

Ok. Should be fixed automatically when I use the most recent xml2rfc version
to generate the text file, but I'll check it.

> avoid breaking "http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt" across two lines.

Ok. 

> In the Abstract, delete "new" in the first sentence.

Ok.

> might be good to mention RFC 2131 in the "Introduction", too.

Although no MIPv6 suboptions are defined here, I think it would make sense to
permit that. I'll add a note about that.

> "2.2 Mobile IP Terminology".  A reference to terminology in RFC 2131 might

Ok.

> sub-option, in list entry "Agent IP Address", change "trough" to "through".

(Blush) One of my recurring misspellings. And the spellcheckers don't catch it.

> In the same list, is the entry "Reserved-0" needed?  I don't see a field

Right.

> Mention somewhere in the draft that discussion about the draft should be

Ok. I'll add chair address too.

	Henrik