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: draft-ietf-dhc-relay-id-suboption-11 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2012-12-19 IETF LC End Date: 2013-01-07 Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication as a proposed standard. However, there is one comment from a prior review that I am not sure whether is resolved. Major issues: None Minor issues: -- In Sean Turner's 2009 review of version 07 of the document [ http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg04614.html ], he made the following comment: > In the security considerations it says look to RFC 3046 and > RFC 4030 for security considerations and then says SHOULD use the relay > agent authentication option from RFC 4030. RFC 3046 is targeted at > network infrastructures that are "trusted and secure" and RFC 4030 > allows the relay agent to be part of this trusted and secure network. > If an implementation doesn't use the relay agent authentication option, > then the relay agent can't be part of the "trusted and secure" network. > This makes me think that the relay agent authentication option from > RFC 4030 ought to be a MUST not a SHOULD? I can't tell from the resulting conversation if that comment is addressed in the current text. Additional text has been added, but the SHOULD remains. I'm willing to accept it has been addressed if the author's say so--I only mention it to make sure it didn't fall through a crack. Nits/editorial comments: -- section 5, last paragraph: I suggest removing the scare quotes around "stability". If there are concerns about whether such stability is real, it would be better to say that directly. -- informative references: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-bulk-leasequery-06 is now 07