Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol-04

Request Review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-01-19
Requested 2017-01-05
Authors Tomek Mrugalski, Kim Kinnear
Draft last updated 2017-02-01
Completed reviews Intdir Early review of -03 by Carlos Bernardos (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -04 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -03 by Carlos Pignataro (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Christer Holmberg
State Completed
Review review-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol-04-genart-lc-holmberg-2017-02-01
Reviewed rev. 04 (document currently at 06)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2017-02-01


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at


Document:                                      draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol-04.txt

Reviewer:                                        Christer Holmberg

Review Date:                                  01.02.2017

IETF LC End Date:                          19.01.2017

IESG Telechat date: (if known)    02.02.2017

Summary:                                       The document is almost ready for publication, but there are some editorial nits that I'd like the authors to address.

Major issues:                                 None

Minor issues:                                 None

Nits/editorial comments:


Q1:        In the first sentence of the Introduction, I suggest to say:

"The failover protocol defined in this document provides..."

Otherwise it's a little unclear what failover protocol you are talking about.

Q2:        In the Introduction, before the first sentence, shouldn't there be some background text, including some information about the problem that the document solves. I know there is something in the Abstract, but I think there should also be something in the Introduction, before jumping into the solution.

Q3:        In the Introduction, I suggest adding a reference to the first occurrences of "DHCP service" and "DHCP server".

Q4:        In the Introduction, you switch between "This protocol" and "The failover protocol". Please use consistent terminology. This applies to the document in general.


Q5:        In the Abstract and Introduction it is said that DHCPv6 does not provide server redundancy. Then section 4 talks about failover concepts and mechanism.

Are those concepts something used for DHCPv6 today, but for some reason do not fulfil the failover protocol requirements?

OR, are these general concepts that will be supported by implementing the failover protocol?

I think it would be good to have an introduction statement clarifying that.