Last Call Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device-06
review-ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device-06-artart-lc-alvestrand-2024-02-06-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 08) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | ART Area Review Team (artart) | |
| Deadline | 2024-02-12 | |
| Requested | 2024-01-29 | |
| Authors | Lorenzo Colitti , Jen Linkova , Xiao Ma | |
| I-D last updated | 2024-02-06 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -07
by Peter E. Yee
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Klaas Wierenga (diff) Artart Last Call review of -06 by Harald T. Alvestrand (diff) Intdir Telechat review of -07 by Tim Chown (diff) Secdir Telechat review of -07 by Klaas Wierenga (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Jürgen Schönwälder (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Harald T. Alvestrand |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device by ART Area Review Team Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/IGWCq5VU_05aD7i3Gq48R4dy_-M | |
| Reviewed revision | 06 (document currently at 08) | |
| Result | Almost ready | |
| Completed | 2024-02-06 |
review-ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device-06-artart-lc-alvestrand-2024-02-06-00
Status: Almost ready The document is targeted at Informational, and makes no protocol changes; it does contain a number of requirements on deployments, which makes me wonder if it should be Proposed or BCP. The biggest detected problem is with privacy, where the risk of tracking seems to be underplayed, with the recommendation being a weak "client might consider implementing a mechanism similar to RFC 8981". Given that a fixed prefix per client is near certain to be tracked as soon as it's deployed, I think the recommendation should be "SHOULD (MUST?) reallocate prefixes on the same schedule as is deployed for RFC 8981 addresses". Apart from that, I think the document is ready. Nits: - PIO is not defined or expanded on first use - Example topology drawing in section 4 is truncated in HTML format (covered by TOC), and > 80 chars in text format - in section 12, "network devices resources" should probably be "network devices' resources"
