Hello, On Sat, Mar 29, 2025 at 7:16 AM <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> wrote: > 1) <!--[rfced] Document title > > a) Note that we updated "DHCPv6 Prefix" to "DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation" in the > document title. In addition, please review "Availability to Hosts" and > consider updating in one of the following ways to improve clarity of the > title. > > Original: > Signaling DHCPv6 Prefix per Client Availability to Hosts > > Current: > Signaling DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation per Client Availability to Hosts > > Perhaps (1): > Signaling to Hosts the Availability of DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation per Client > > Perhaps (2): > Signaling to Hosts the Preference for Using DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation per > Client
We'd like to propose the following: " Using Router Advertisements to signal the Availability of DHCPv6 Prefix delegation to clients"/ > b) Note that we have updated the short title, which appears in the > running header in the PDF output, as follows. > > Original: > pio-p-flag > > Current: > PIO P Flag > --> Sounds good, thank you! > 2) <!--[rfced] How may we clarify the use of "[RFC9663]" in the two sentences > below? > > Original: > For example, > if clients enable [RFC9663] on a home network that only receives a > /60 from the ISP, and each client obtains a /64 prefix... > ... > Therefore, to safely roll out [RFC9663] implementations on the client > side, it is necessary to have a mechanism for the network to signal > to the client which address assignment method is preferred. > > Perhaps: > For example, > if clients enable the mechanism described in [RFC9663] on a > home network that only receives a /60 from the ISP and each client > obtains a /64 prefix... > ... > Therefore, to safely roll out implementations using the mechanism in > [RFC9663] > on the client side, it is necessary to have a mechanism for the network > to signal to the client which address assignment method is preferred. > > Or: > For example, > if clients enable DHCPv6-PD [RFC9663] on a > home network that only receives a /60 from the ISP and each client > obtains a /64 prefix... > ... > Therefore, to safely roll out implementations using DHCPv6-PD [RFC9663] > on the client side, it is necessary to have a mechanism for the network > to signal to the client which address assignment method is preferred. > --> The authors would like to propose the following text: "For example, if clients assume the [RFC9663] deployment model on a home network that only receives a /60 from the ISP and each client obtains a /64 prefix... [skip].. Therefore, to safely roll out the support of the deployment model defined in [RFC9663] on the client side, it is necessary to have a mechanism for the network to signal to the client which address assignment method is preferred." > 3) <!-- [rfced] We added numbers in this long sentence to improve > readability. Please review. > > Original: > Forming addresses via SLAAC is > suboptimal because if the client later acquires a prefix using > DHCPv6-PD, it can either use both the prefix and SLAAC addresses, > reducing the scalability benefits of using DHCPv6-PD, or can > remove the SLAAC addresses, which would be disruptive for > applications that are using them. > > Updated: > Forming addresses via SLAAC is > suboptimal because if the client later acquires a prefix using > DHCPv6-PD, it can either 1) use both the prefix and SLAAC > addresses, reducing the scalability benefits of using DHCPv6-PD, > or 2) remove the SLAAC addresses, which would be disruptive for > applications that are using them. > --> Looks good, thanks! > 4) <!--[rfced] Should "MUST not" be updated to "MUST NOT" here? Note that > "MUST > NOT" is listed in the Requirements Language section. > > Original: > In particular, enabling or disabling the P flag MUST not trigger > automatic changes in the A flag value set by the router. > --> Yes, it should be "MUST NOT" indeed! > 5) <!--[rfced] FYI - We have added a citation to RFC 6724 for Rule 5. Please > let us know of any objections. > > Original: > This includes placing them in the candidate > set, and associating them with the outgoing interface when > implementing Rule 5 of the source address selection algorithm. > > Current: > This includes placing them in the candidate > set, and associating them with the outgoing interface when > implementing Rule 5 of the source address selection algorithm [RFC6724]. > --> No objections, the new text is better. > 6) <!-- [rfced] *AD and authors - There is an open erratum report against RFC > 4861 regarding the text that is being updated in Section 9.1 of this > document. Are any updates needed? > > See https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8055. > --> There is no conflict in spirit between the filed erratum and this document. But if the erratum is approved then the text of this document should be updated to reflect the erratum, and say: “Note: If none of the M, O, or P (draft-ietf-6man-pio-pflag) flags are set, this indicates that no information is available via DHCPv6 from the router, or from other nodes that the router has been made aware of". With my 6MAN chair hat on: let the chairs discuss it with the AD. I think it would be better if the decision for the erratum is made before this draft is published. > 7) <!-- [rfced] Would you like to update the capitalization of "DHCPv6-PD > preferred flag" as follows to correspond with the other entries in the > "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Prefix Information Option Flags" registry? > > Link to registry: > https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters/icmpv6-parameters.xhtml#ipv6-neighbor-discovery-prefix-information-options > > Original: > DHCPv6-PD preferred flag > > Perhaps: > DHCPv6-PD Preferred Flag > --> Yes, let's use the capitalized version. > 8) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We alphabetized the names listed in the Acknowledgements > section. We believe that was the intent as only two were out of order. Let us > know if you prefer the original order. > --> Perfect, thank you! > 9) <!--[rfced] Abbreviations > > a) We updated "Unique Local Unicast (ULA, [RFC4193]) addresses" as > follows. Note that we removed the acronym "ULA" as it is not used elsewhere in > this document or in RFC 4193. > > Original: > For example, a network administrator might want > clients to assign global addresses from delegated prefixes, but > use the PIO prefix to form Unique Local Unicast (ULA, [RFC4193]) > addresses. > > Current: > For example, a network administrator might want > clients to assign global addresses from delegated prefixes but use > the PIO prefix to form Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses > [RFC4193]. We'd like to propose the following version: "For example, a network administrator might want clients to assign global addresses from delegated prefixes, but form Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses [RFC4193] from another PIO in the RA using SLAAC." > > b) Both the expansion and the acronym for the following terms are used > throughout the document. Would you like to update to using the expansion upon > first usage and the acronym for the rest of the document? > > Prefix Information Option (PIO) > Router Advertisement (RA) PIO is present in the Terminology section. We'd like to include another term there: "RA: Router Advertisement, RFC4861" Both acronyms are used (and explained) in the Abstract, and then do not use until after the Terminology. I think we can use the acronym only for the rest of the document, thank you! > 10) <!--[rfced] Terminology > > a) How should the names of flags appear (without quotes, with single > quotes, or with double quotes)? > > Examples: > P flag > 'P' flag > "P" flag > R flag > M and O flag > 'M' flag > A flag Without quotes (P flag, M flag etc) > b) Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used > inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how they > may be made consistent. > > Preferred Lifetime vs. preferred lifetime > Prefix Delegation vs. prefix delegation RFC4861 uses both ‘preferred’ and ‘Preferred Lifetime’ (50/50), but RFC4862 uses ‘preferred’. RFC8415 uses non-capitalized versions everywhere (except in section titles and figure legends) So let’s use the lowercase version except inside Figure 1. > c) Should "SOLICIT" (all caps) here be updated to "Solicit"? Although RFC > 8415 contains > two instances of "SOLICIT", it contains many instances of "Solicit message". > > Original: > ...i.e., it SHOULD NOT include any IA_NA options > in SOLICIT ([RFC8415]) messages. > > Perhaps: > ...i.e., it SHOULD NOT include any IA_NA options > in Solicit messages [RFC8415]. > --> We should use 'Solicit". > 11) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online > Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> > and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically > result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. > > Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should > still be reviewed as a best practice. > --> The document has been reviewed, the authors do not think any changes are needed. Thank you! > On Mar 28, 2025, at 1:11 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > Updated 2025/03/28 > > RFC Author(s): > -------------- > > Instructions for Completing AUTH48 > > Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and > approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. > If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies > available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). > > You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties > (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing > your approval. > > Planning your review > --------------------- > > Please review the following aspects of your document: > > * RFC Editor questions > > Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor > that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as > follows: > > <!-- [rfced] ... --> > > These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. > > * Changes submitted by coauthors > > Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your > coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you > agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. > > * Content > > Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot > change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: > - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) > - contact information > - references > > * Copyright notices and legends > > Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in > RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions > (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). > > * Semantic markup > > Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of > content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> > and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at > <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. > > * Formatted output > > Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the > formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is > reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting > limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. > > > Submitting changes > ------------------ > > To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all > the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties > include: > > * your coauthors > > * rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team) > > * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., > IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the > responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). > > * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list > to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion > list: > > * More info: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc > > * The archive itself: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ > > * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out > of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). > If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you > have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list and > its addition will be noted at the top of the message. > > You may submit your changes in one of two ways: > > An update to the provided XML file > — OR — > An explicit list of changes in this format > > Section # (or indicate Global) > > OLD: > old text > > NEW: > new text > > You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit > list of changes, as either form is sufficient. > > We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem > beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, > and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in > the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. > > > Approving for publication > -------------------------- > > To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating > that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, > as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. > > > Files > ----- > > The files are available here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762.txt > > Diff file of the text: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Diff of the XML: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762-xmldiff1.html > > > Tracking progress > ----------------- > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9762 > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > RFC Editor > > -------------------------------------- > RFC9762 (draft-ietf-6man-pio-pflag-12) > > Title : Signaling DHCPv6 Prefix per Client Availability to Hosts > Author(s) : L. Colitti, J. Linkova, X. Ma, D. Lamparter > WG Chair(s) : Bob Hinden, Ole Trøan, Jen Linkova > > Area Director(s) : Erik Kline, Éric Vyncke -- Cheers, Jen Linkova -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
