Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP): IPv4 and IPv6 Dual-Stack Issues
draft-ietf-dhc-dual-stack-04
No Record
Deb Cooley
Erik Kline
Francesca Palombini
Gunter Van de Velde
Jim Guichard
John Scudder
Mahesh Jethanandani
Murray Kucherawy
Orie Steele
Paul Wouters
Roman Danyliw
Warren Kumari
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
Éric Vyncke
Summary: Needs a YES.
Deb Cooley
No Record
Erik Kline
No Record
Francesca Palombini
No Record
Gunter Van de Velde
No Record
Jim Guichard
No Record
John Scudder
No Record
Mahesh Jethanandani
No Record
Murray Kucherawy
No Record
Orie Steele
No Record
Paul Wouters
No Record
Roman Danyliw
No Record
Warren Kumari
No Record
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
No Record
Éric Vyncke
No Record
David Kessens Former IESG member
No Record
No Record
(2006-02-21)
Unknown
Comments received from the Ops Directorate by Pekka Savola: This seemed to be a relatively good document. More or less editorial comments below. (in Section 5) On reflection on the above observations, it was the strong consensus of the dhc WG to adopt the two-server approach (separate DHCP and DHCPv6 servers) in favour to a combined, single server returning IPv4 information over IPv6. The two servers may be co-located on a single node, and may have consistent configuration information generated from a single asset database. ==> this is the first time you mention that DHC WG has already made a decision on this. Making this more prominent earlier in the spec (e.g., abstract, introduction, section 4.1/4.2) would probably be useful. If the goal of this to-be-RFC is to document issues and discussions for historical reference and further development, some minor rewording could be helpful. mostly editorial ---------------- ==> please remove references from the abstract. These protocols allow nodes to communicate via IPv4 or IPv6 to retrieve configuration settings for operation in a managed environment ==> s/IPv6/IPv6 (respectively)/, otherwise this could be read that DHCPv4 would also support v6, or DHCPv6 support v4. While there is a more general multihoming issue to be solved for DHC, in this text we focus on the specific issues for operating DHCP in a mixed (typically dual-stack) IPv4 and IPv6 environment. ==> you mention 'multihoming' in two occasions, but don't really include enough context to convey what you're talking about. The last paragraph of section 5 makes this a bit clearer; maybe reordering text or making a separate subsection on multihoming would help. The DNS search path may vary for administrative reasons. For example, a site under the domain foo.com chooses to place an early IPv6 deployment under the subdomain ipv6.foo.com, until it is confident of offering a full dual-stack service under its main domain. The subtlety here is that the DNS search path then affects choice of protocol used, such as IPv6 for nodes in ipv6.foo.com. ==> s/foo.com/example.com/, s/chooses/may choose/ ? ==> btw, a related issue (similar text in 1st paragraph of section 4.4) has been discussed briefly in section 4.2 of draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-issues-12.txt (in rfc-ed queue). The principle operational choice is whether separate DHCP and DHCPv6 servers should be maintained by a site, or whether DHCPv6 should be extended to carry IPv4 configuration settings for dual-stack nodes. ==> is this only an operational choice? it's probably also an implementation and specification choice.