Subject: Re: [Last-Call] [Int-area] Last Call: <draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains-09.txt> (Discovering Provisioning Domain Names and Data) to Proposed Standard

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 21:30:02 +0100

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 11:45:12AM -0800,
 The IESG <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 47 lines which said:

> The IESG has received a request from the Internet Area Working Group WG
> (intarea) to consider the following document: - 'Discovering Provisioning
> Domain Names and Data'
>   <draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains-09.txt> as Proposed Standard

I find the document well-written and clear. It seems to me a very good
idea.

But I have two questions:

The first one is about the example in section 5.1. The draft says "a
PvD-aware host will receive two different prefixes, 2001:db8:cafe::/64
and 2001:db8:f00d::/64". Is it obvious for anyone that the PvD-aware
host has to merge the information just after the RA header and the one
under the PVD option? Section 3.4 is not clear about that. What about
options that can have only one value such as MTU? If there are two
different values just after the RA header and in the PvD option? Which
one wins?

The second one is about some JSON examples. Most of them write FQDNs
without a final dot. I don't think it will be a problem in practice,
implementations will compare FQDN after removing the final dot if
there is one, but is there a reason why most examples of RAs have a
final dot and most JSON examples don't?