I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)reviewer for
this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please
seehttp://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you
may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-dhc-vpn-option-11.txt
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.
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?
reply packet returned from the DHCP server to the DHCP client for
which it is destined.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf