Subject: [dhcwg] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-dhc-v6only-05: (with COMMENT)

From: Martin Duke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 10:30:00 -0700

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dhc-v6only-05: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-v6only/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS on spoofed long timeouts in the github version.

Original comments, since addressed:

This seems like an important stepping stone to v6 adoption, so thanks.

Sec 3.1 In client-generated messages, what is in the "Value field"? I presume
this is one of those "client MUST set to zero and server MUST ignore" cases?

Sec 3.3
"If the client then
   issues a DHCPREQUEST for the address, the server MUST process it per
   [RFC2131], including replying with a DHCPACK for the address if in
   the meantime it has not been committed to another client."

What if it HAS been committed to another client? What then?