Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-yang-22

From: t petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2021 12:48:09 +0000

Belatedly getting to review -23

Why is it prefix delegation almost everywhere but prefix-del in the 
client module?  Worth an explanatory paragraph IMHO.

IANA dhcpv6 parameters is  a sort of reference in the YANG but not for 
the I-D

I can see what the feature statements do for client duid in the client 
module but am uncertain whether or not that is what is wanted. 
Precedence of operators is
not
and
or
so interface duid is present for
temp-addr and anon-profile
or
prefix-del
or
non-temp-addr
I think but as my Boolean arithmetic stopped when I found you only ever 
needed non-equivalence to design any logic ever I have never been too 
sure of mixed 'and' 'or' without brackets.

I know - telechat day and I am still going.

Tom Petch

On 16/09/2021 17:22, Timothy Winters via Datatracker wrote:
> Timothy Winters has requested publication of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-yang-22 as Proposed Standard on behalf of the DHC working group.
>
> Please verify the document's state at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-yang/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> .
>

---

From: t petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2021 12:11:11 +0000

> sure of mixed 'and' 'or' without brackets.

I have now been through -23 and -24.  I note the changes to client duid 
and still have doubts about the if-feature Boolean logic but think that 
this is not helped by the related text being bad.  It seems to come from 
a different planet.

prefix-delegation has been a feature for ages.  -23 changed he 
identifier to prefix-del but for client only.  Same description, same 
reference.  Why?

the text in 3.3 talks of prefix leasing; everywhere else it is prefix 
delegation.  What is the difference?

the text in 3.3 talks of address leasing.  The YANG module refers to 
(non-)temporary address allocation.  What is the relationship between 
these two terms?

I commented before that dhcpv6 parameters should be an I-D reference; I 
see that it was and think that it still should be

Tom Petch

>> Timothy Winters has requested publication of
>> draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-yang-22 as Proposed Standard on behalf of the
>> DHC working group.
>>
>> Please verify the document's state at
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-yang/
>>
>>