Subject: [dhcwg] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-yang-24: (with COMMENT)

From: Erik Kline via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 20:28:58 -0800

Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-yang-24: 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/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-yang/

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

[S1.2; nit]

* s/demonstrate how this is can be/demonstrate how this can be/

[S3.1; nit]

* s/for an failure/for a failure/

[S3.2, S4.3]

* Should RFC 4649 remote-id be included here?  Or, perhaps, did RFC 8415
  S21.18 OPTION_INTERFACE_ID effectively obsolete OPTION_REMOTE_ID use
  cases (or perhaps I'm just confused)?

[S3.3, 4.4; question]

* For the user class and vendor class options, should they be annotated as
  "not anon-profile"?  I'm curious about these elements w.r.t. to
  RFC7844 S4.8.