Subject: [Gen-art] (summary) review of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-06.txt

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:45:39 +0200

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-06.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 2010-07-22
IETF LC End Date: 2010-07-26
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Not Ready

I am trying to send this before the v6ops meeting this
afternoon, so it is only a summary, a full review will follow ASAP.

Major issues: I have a concern with the way the document uses DHCPv6
and even more about what could be more in the scope of the DHC WG.

The document uses a combination of "standard" DHCPv6 (IA_NA), prefix
delegation (IA_PD) and stateless (IRT option). You can believe it is
a good or a bad thing but this is not the issue: this raises hairy
technical questions (error cases, server advertise rating, etc)
which must be discussed by the DHC WG. And if you believe combined
modes are underspecified this has to be fixed by a DHC WG document
and clearly not by this one.

IMHO the document should only specify a profile so I strongly recommend
to give the document to the DHC WG with at least these two questions:
 - what is the technical opinion about the DHCPv6 related requiments
  of the document?
 - are some questions raised by the document is the scope of the DHC WG
  and should be addressed by an extra work by the DHC WG?

Thanks

[email-masked]