Thank you Russ for your review :-)
-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg <dhcwg-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of Russ Housley via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Russ Housley <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, 18 June 2020 at 22:40
To: "secdir@xxxxxxxx" <secdir@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: "draft-ietf-dhc-v6only.all@xxxxxxxx" <draft-ietf-dhc-v6only.all@xxxxxxxx>, "dhcwg@xxxxxxxx" <dhcwg@xxxxxxxx>, "last-call@xxxxxxxx" <last-call@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: [dhcwg] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-dhc-v6only-03
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review result: Has Nits
I reviewed this document as part of the Security Directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Security Area
Directors. Document authors, document editors, and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other IETF Last Call comments.
Document: draft-ietf-dhc-v6only-03
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2020-06-18
IETF LC End Date: 2020-07-02
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Has Nits
Major Concerns:
None.
Minor Concerns:
Section 3.4 includes:
V6ONLY_WAIT The minimum time the client SHOULD stop the DHCPv4
configuration process for. MUST be no less than
MIN_V6ONLY_WAIT seconds. Default: 1800 seconds
The second sentence should include a subject; and "MUST NOT" seems like
a better wording to me. I suggest:
V6ONLY_WAIT The minimum time for which the client SHOULD stop
the DHCPv4 configuration process. The value MUST NOT
be less than MIN_V6ONLY_WAIT seconds.
Default: 1800 seconds.
Nits:
Section 2: s/seems only natural/seems natural/
Section 3.3.1: s/for V6ONLY_WAIT second/for V6ONLY_WAIT seconds/
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
