On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 11:45:12AM -0800, The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote a message of 47 lines which said: > The IESG has received a request from the Internet Area Working Group WG > (intarea) to consider the following document: - 'Discovering Provisioning > Domain Names and Data' > <draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains-09.txt> as Proposed Standard I find the document well-written and clear. It seems to me a very good idea. But I have two questions: The first one is about the example in section 5.1. The draft says "a PvD-aware host will receive two different prefixes, 2001:db8:cafe::/64 and 2001:db8:f00d::/64". Is it obvious for anyone that the PvD-aware host has to merge the information just after the RA header and the one under the PVD option? Section 3.4 is not clear about that. What about options that can have only one value such as MTU? If there are two different values just after the RA header and in the PvD option? Which one wins? The second one is about some JSON examples. Most of them write FQDNs without a final dot. I don't think it will be a problem in practice, implementations will compare FQDN after removing the final dot if there is one, but is there a reason why most examples of RAs have a final dot and most JSON examples don't? -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
