Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-netboot-08

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 15:49:05 -0500

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-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-netboot-08
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: April 14, 2010
IESG Telechat date: April 12, 2010.

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.

It has 1 major issues, 0 minor issue and 0 nits.

Major issue (may not be so major):

This draft represents an IPv6 address textually (c.f. Section
3.1).  As such, does this textual representation has any bearing
to what is being discussed in
draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation-07 (see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation/)?

That particular draft is with the IESG right now.  I just
want to bring the attention of the authors of
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-netboot-08 to
draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation if they are not
aware of it.

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: vkg@{alcatel-lucent.com,bell-labs.com,acm.org}
Web:   http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:18:55 -0400

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation/)?

Thanks for the review!

The 6man draft is talking about presentation format, not internal format.   The netboot URIs are strictly for machine consumption, not for human consumption, and there's no intention that they be sorted or searched.   So while an implementor of a user interface for the netboot functionality might want to refer to the 6man draft, should it progress, I don't think that it's something that's sufficiently relevant to the netboot draft that it would make sense, for instance, to delay the netboot draft until the 6man draft progresses.

Does that make sense, or am I missing something?

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 16:26:32 -0500

On 04/14/2010 04:18 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> Thanks for the review!
>
> The 6man draft is talking about presentation format, not internal
> format.   The netboot URIs are strictly for machine consumption, not
> for human consumption, and there's no intention that they be sorted
> or searched.   So while an implementor of a user interface for the
> netboot functionality might want to refer to the 6man draft, should
> it progress, I don't think that it's something that's sufficiently
> relevant to the netboot draft that it would make sense, for instance,
> to delay the netboot draft until the 6man draft progresses.
>

Ted:

Makes sense.  My aim was not to delay the netboot draft, but rather
bring to your attention the 6man draft.  Having done that, the
reasoning you give above sounds fine to me.

Thanks,

- vijay

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:54:00 -0400

> reasoning you give above sounds fine to me.

Okay, thanks!