Document: draft-ietf-ecrit-dhc-lost-discovery-02.txt
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: 28 Nov 2007
IESG Telechat date: 29 Nov 2007

Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be fixed before publication.

This is a straight-forward draft that describes how a LoST client discovers a LoST server using DHCP extensions (a bit clever -- lost clients discovering equally lost servers ;-) but I digress...)

Major nits:

- S4, the code in Figure 1 is "TBD".  I am not sure whether the
   acronym there stands for "To Be Decided" or whether "TBD" is
   the actual code.  Complicating matters further is that the
   text right underneath the figure refers to the code as "(TBD1)".

- S5, is the value of option-code "TBD2", or is that a place-
   holder?

- S7.1: the value underneath the "Value" column is "TBD".  Should
   it be "TBD1" to match S4, assuming of course that "TBD1" is not a
   a place-holder of some sort.

- S7.2: the value underneath the "Value" column is "TBD".  Should
   it be "TBD2" to match S5, assuming of course that "TBD2" is not a
   a place-holder of some sort.

Note: Regarding the TBD1 and TBD2, it suddenly occurred to me that your intent was that these be *assigned* by IANA as the next available DHCP option code.  In such as case, probably putting "To Be Assigned by IANA" is a better placeholder than "TBD".


Minor nits:

- S1, second paragraph, first line, last word:
   why "finally"?  Is discovering the server a "final", or last
   step in a procedure?  I think you may want to consider removing
   "finally" or replacing it with "eventually".

- S1, second paragraph, second line:
   s/know its IP address/discover the server's IP address/

   Rationale: as currently written, the "its" appears to refer
   to the nearest noun (LoST client); but that does not make sense
   since the client already knows its address.

- S1, second paragraph, fifth line:
   s/LoST server DHCP/LoST server, DHCP/

- S1, last paragraph: any specific reason why Section 3 is missing
   from the roadmap?

- S3, second paragraph, third line.  Looks like some leading
   text from S3.1 of rfc1035 was omitted.  In other words,
   the -lost-discovery-02 draft says:

      The domain name ends with the null label of the root, a
      domain name is terminated by a length byte of zero.

    But S3.1 of rfc1035 actually says:

      Since every domain name ends with the null label of
      the root, a domain name is terminated by a length byte
      of zero.

   So: s/The/Since every