Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-07
review-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-07-genart-lc-romascanu-2014-04-28-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2014-04-29
Requested 2014-04-16
Draft last updated 2014-04-28
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -07 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -07 by Fred Baker (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Dan Romascanu
State Completed
Review review-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-07-genart-lc-romascanu-2014-04-28
Reviewed rev. 07 (document currently at 09)
Review result Ready with Issues
Review completed: 2014-04-28

Review
review-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-07-genart-lc-romascanu-2014-04-28






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: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-07.txt




Reviewer: Dan Romascanu




Review Date: 4/28/14




IETF LC End Date: 4/29/14




IESG Telechat date: 




 




Summary: Ready, with a few small issues




 




Major issues: None




 




Minor issues:




 







1.

      


In section 10: 




 




   When the server receives a DHCPv4-query message from a client, it




   searches for the DHCPv4 Message option.  The server discards the




   packet without this option.  The server MAY notify an administrator




   about the receipt of a malformed packet.  The mechanism for this




   notification is out of scope for this document.




 




It would be good to clarify the behavior of the server beyond possibly notifying an administrator at the receipt of a malformed packet. Is the packet discarded?





 




2.

      


I believe that [RFC3527] should rather be a Normative Reference. Even if the use of a Link Selection sub-option is under a ‘may’ – it cannot be implemented unless RFC3527 is read.





 




 




Nits/editorial comments:




 




In the introduction there is reference to the ‘DHCP leasequery’. Actually in RFC 4388 one can find Leasequery either capitalized (in the title) or ALL-CAPS in the text.