Subject: [Gen-art] re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-dnsdomain-03.txt

From: "CTO YAN Renxiang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 08:56:28 +0800

Hi, Eric,

Thanks for the review.

We will revise the draft to resolve the issues and and ask for WG review 
when it's ready.

Regards,
Renxiang

> -----原始邮件-----
> 发件人: Gray, Eric [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 发送时间: 2006年9月29日 23:32
> 收件人: CTO YAN Renxiang; SSMD Jiang YingLan; CTO Gui 
> Luoning; Xiaodong
> Duan
> 抄送: [email-masked]; Jari Arkko
> 主题: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-dnsdomain-03.txt
> 
> 
> Authors,
> 
> 	I am the the assigned General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) 
> reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see 
> http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). 
> 
> 	Please resolve these comments along with any other Last 
> Call comments you may receive. 
> 
> 
> 
> Document: 
> --------
> 
>             Domain Suffix Option for DHCPv6
>       <draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-dnsdomain-03.txt>
> 
> Reviewer: Eric Gray
> 
> Review Date: 9/30/2006
> 
> IETF LC Date: through 10/10/2006
> 
> Summary:
> -------
> 
> 	This draft is not quite ready for publication as a 
> Proposed Standard. 
> 
> Comments:  
> 
> 	The relatively minor shortcomings of this draft have been
> exhaustively digested on the following lists:
> 
> 	DHC Working Group ([email-masked])
> 	IETF-Announce ([email-masked])
> 	IETF-Discussion ([email-masked])
> 
> People commenting in the (public) discussion include all of the 
> following (no special order - some complaining, some defending):
> 
> 	John C Klensin
> 	Frank Ellermann
> 	Jeffrey Hutzelman
> 	Ralph Droms
> 	Matt Larson
> 	David W Hankins
> 	Dave Crocker
> 	Fred Baker
> 	Harald Alvestrand
> 	Keith Moore
> 	Stig Venaas
> 
> 	The draft is 5 pages long - meaning that it has less than two 
> pages of non-template content.
> 
> 	If any one thing has emerged consistently in the discussion,
> it is that there are some areas that need clearing up.  I have been
> following the discussion, and have reviewed the document itself.  I
> have nothing new to add to this discussion except to congratulate 
> the authors on having created so succinct an Internet Draft as a
> candidate for Proposed Standard.
> 
> 	However, I fully support Ralph Droms' suggestion that the ID
> be taken back under the DHC working group aegis (cooperating with 
> the DNSOP working group) and modified - per his suggestions - i.e.
> 
> 	1. clarify the use case motivating this option
> 	2. clarify/reword the phrase "domain suffix"
> 	3. simplify the reference to RFC 1035 encoding
> 
> I would add to this, in addition, that the clarifications referred 
> to in number 2 above should include clarifying the entire phrase 
> starting with:
> 
> "The domain suffix in the 'domain suffix' field MUST include only one
>  item, ..."
> 
> 	From the discussion, I believe that phrases "domain suffix" and 
> "one item" both need some clarification.
> 
> --
> Eric Gray
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art