Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ecrit-dhc-lost-discovery-02.txt

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:14:55 -0600

I have been selected as the 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 wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-ecrit-dhc-lost-discovery-02.txt
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: 28 Nov 2007
IESG Telechat date: 29 Nov 2007

Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but
has nits that should be fixed before publication.

This is a straight-forward draft that describes how a LoST
client discovers a LoST server using DHCP extensions (a bit
clever -- lost clients discovering equally lost servers ;-) but
I digress...)

Major nits:

- S4, the code in Figure 1 is "TBD".  I am not sure whether the
   acronym there stands for "To Be Decided" or whether "TBD" is
   the actual code.  Complicating matters further is that the
   text right underneath the figure refers to the code as "(TBD1)".

- S5, is the value of option-code "TBD2", or is that a place-
   holder?

- S7.1: the value underneath the "Value" column is "TBD".  Should
   it be "TBD1" to match S4, assuming of course that "TBD1" is not a
   a place-holder of some sort.

- S7.2: the value underneath the "Value" column is "TBD".  Should
   it be "TBD2" to match S5, assuming of course that "TBD2" is not a
   a place-holder of some sort.

Minor nits:

- S1, second paragraph, first line, last word:
   why "finally"?  Is discovering the server a "final", or last
   step in a procedure?  I think you may want to consider removing
   "finally" or replacing it with "eventually".

- S1, second paragraph, second line:
   s/know its IP address/discover the server's IP address/

   Rationale: as currently written, the "its" appears to refer
   to the nearest noun (LoST client); but that does not make sense
   since the client already knows its address.

- S1, second paragraph, fifth line:
   s/LoST server DHCP/LoST server, DHCP/

- S1, last paragraph: any specific reason why Section 3 is missing
   from the roadmap?

- S3, second paragraph, third line.  Looks like some leading
   text from S3.1 of rfc1035 was omitted.  In other words,
   the -lost-discovery-02 draft says:

      The domain name ends with the null label of the root, a
      domain name is terminated by a length byte of zero.

    But S3.1 of rfc1035 actually says:

      Since every domain name ends with the null label of
      the root, a domain name is terminated by a length byte
      of zero.

   So: s/The/Since every

That's it.

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
2701 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9F-546, Lisle, Illinois 60532 (USA)
Email: vkg@{alcatel-lucent.com,bell-labs.com,acm.org}
WWW:   http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/bell-labs

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