Thank you for your review. My comments
are preceded by Kim:, below.
At 06:55 PM 10/21/2009, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)reviewer for
this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you
Reviewer: Spencer Dawkins
Review Date: 2009-10-21
IETF LC End Date: 2009-10-16 (sorry!)
IESG Telechat date: 2009-10-22 (double-sorry!)
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a Proposed Standard. I
had two questions about 2119 language in section 5, as follows:
5. Relay Agent Behavior
A DHCPv4 relay agent SHOULD include a DHCPv4 VSS sub-option in a
relay-agent-information option [RFC3046], while a DHCPv6 relay agent
SHOULD include a DHCPv6 VSS option in the Relay-forward message.
Spencer (minor): is this functionality supposed to work if either SHOULD is
violated? I'm wondering why these are not MUSTs.
Kim: No, the functionality described in this
document will not work if either SHOULD is violated,
though their may be some other way for the relay
agent to get its needs met. I guess that should
be a MUST for this document, then. I'll fix it.
The value placed in the Virtual Subnet Selection sub-option or option
SHOULD be sufficient for the relay agent to properly route any DHCP
Spencer (minor): I don't think this is a 2119 SHOULD. I'm thinking "more like
a statement of fact" - perhaps "will be sufficient"? If it's really 2119, why
isn't it a MUST?
Kim: The thinking here is that the relay agent
can send everything it needs to route in the VSS option/sub-option.
But this was a SHOULD since it might have internal
tables that remember state and so this might be
a key into internal state that would allow it to
work. I'll clarify and fix this.
Regards - Kim
reply packet returned from the DHCP server to the DHCP client for
which it is destined.
Ietf mailing list