Hi,
I will leave only the items that needed my response
7. In section 3.4 “If the client decided to use the prefix provided
by the server despite being longer than the prefix-length hint” yet I
did not see in section 3.2 that the server can provide a longer
prefix.
[Tianxiang] This was mentioned in the last sentence of section 3.2:
"If the requested prefix is not available in the server's prefix pool, and the
client also included a prefix-length hint in the same IA_PD option, then the
server SHOULD try to provide a prefix matching the prefix-length value, or the
prefix with the shortest length possible which is closest to the prefix-length
hint value."
[Roni Even] I understood from 3.2 that it should provide a shorter length
prefix closer to the request maybe “or the prefix with the closest possible
length to the prefix-length hint value”
[Tianxiang2] The original sentence was a bit confusing, perhaps we could change
it like this:
OLD: "If the requested prefix is not available in the server's prefix pool, and
the client also included a prefix-length hint in the same IA_PD option, then
the server SHOULD try to provide a prefix matching the prefix-length value, or
the prefix with the shortest length possible which is closest to the
prefix-length hint value."
NEW:"If the requested prefix is not available in the server's prefix pool, and
the client also included a prefix-length hint in the same IA_PD option, then
the server SHOULD provide a prefix matching the prefix-length hint, or a prefix
which is length is shorter and as close as possible to the prefix-length hint.
If the server could not provide a prefix which length is shorter or equal to
the prefix-length hint, the server SHOULD provide the prefix which length is
longer and as close as possible to the prefix-length hint."
[Roni Even] I have no problem with this text since it will also work with the
rest of the document but is it what was really meant
Also a nit
“or a prefix which is length is shorter and as close as possible to the
prefix-length hint. If the server could not provide a prefix which length is
shorter or equal to the prefix-length hint, the server SHOULD provide the
prefix which length is longer and as close as possible to the prefix-length
hint”
to
“or a prefix whose length is shorter and as close as possible to the
prefix-length hint. If the server could not provide a prefix with a shorter or
equal length to the prefix-length hint, the server SHOULD provide a prefix
whose length is longer and as close as possible to the prefix-length hint”
[Tianxiang] The idea was to list all the options, and discuss their
consequences. And the server could decide which option to use depending on its
policy.
Option 3 avoids the complexity of handling multiple delegated prefixes, despite
of breaking up all connections. Option 4 allows to server to configure a
valid-lifetime for the old prefix depending on actual requirements, rather than
let the old prefix expire on its own.
[Roni Even] OK, still option 4 may have similar result to 3 since “a short
non-zero” may be too short. Why not add a recommended value?
[Tianxiang2] Agree, as this may vary for different services, we could change
the text to say "a specific valid-lifetime depending on the actual requirement".
[Roni Even] OK
Nits/editorial comments: