Subject: [dhcwg] DHC Review of draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-opt

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 18:28:17 -0400

Hi all,

      I would like to ask the members of DHC to review 
draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-opt document. Based on a review by Ted 
Lemon, Tomek Mrugalski, and Bernie Volz, the following issues were raised:

1. The text regarding the prefix in the OPTION_ADDRSEL_TABLE option 
needs to be improved - it currently allows someone to send all 16 octets 
rather than the "minimum" required - int(prefix-len+7)/8). Please see 
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-option-guideline, 5.3. 
Option with IPv6 prefix.

2. Section 3 should be dropped. This is a standard "other configuration 
option" and the client and server requirements for these are best left 
to RFC 3315. The current text has some mistakes and omissions if it were 
to duplicate what RFC 3315 already explains, and doing so risks 
inconsistencies, omissions, or conflicts which are best avoided.

Others are encouraged to look at the document and raise any additional 
concerns they may have regarding this work.  I would like to have 
comments by 2013-03-26.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-opt/

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Ole Troan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:07:22 -0400

>    I would like to ask the members of DHC to review draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-opt document. Based on a review by Ted Lemon, Tomek Mrugalski, and Bernie Volz, the following issues were raised:
> 
> 1. The text regarding the prefix in the OPTION_ADDRSEL_TABLE option needs to be improved - it currently allows someone to send all 16 octets rather than the "minimum" required - int(prefix-len+7)/8). Please see http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-option-guideline, 5.3. Option with IPv6 prefix.

take the option-guideline text verbatim.

> 2. Section 3 should be dropped. This is a standard "other configuration option" and the client and server requirements for these are best left to RFC 3315. The current text has some mistakes and omissions if it were to duplicate what RFC 3315 already explains, and doing so risks inconsistencies, omissions, or conflicts which are best avoided.
> 
> Others are encouraged to look at the document and raise any additional concerns they may have regarding this work.  I would like to have comments by 2013-03-26.

I agree with Brian's suggested changes.

cheers,
Ole

---

From: Marcin Siodelski <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:19:21 -0400

> Lemon, Tomek Mrugalski, and Bernie Volz, the following issues were raised:

In the section 5 (Implementation Considerations) the last bullet is
redundant because the problem of large number of rules has been
addressed by the previous bullet.

Marcin