Ines, thank you for your review. I have entered a Discuss ballot for this document based on my own review. Lars > On 2022-10-4, at 19:57, Ines Robles via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Ines Robles > Review result: Ready with Nits > > 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 > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-?? > Reviewer: Ines Robles > Review Date: 2022-10-04 > IETF LC End Date: 2022-10-04 > IESG Telechat date: 2022-10-20 > > Summary: > > This document defines DHCPv6 options so an Homenet Naming Authority (HNA) can > automatically proceed to the appropriate configuration and outsource the > authoritative naming service for the home network. > > The document is well written and easy to understand. > > I have two minor questions as nits. > > Major issues: None > Minor issues: None > Nits/editorial comments/Questions: > > 1- Have you consider in this document RFC 7227- Guidelines for Creating New > DHCPv6 Options -? If yes, should it be added in the references? If not, why > not? 2- Page 9: "The use of DHCPv6 options provides a similar level of trust as > the one used to provide the IP prefix." In which features are similar? In which > features are dissimilar? > > Thanks for this document, > > Ines. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
