Document: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-dnsdomain-03.txt
Title: Domain Suffix Option for DHCPv6
Reviewer: Eric Gray
Review Date: 9/30/2006
IETF LC Date: through 10/10/2006

Summary:
This draft is not quite ready for publication as a 
Proposed Standard. 

Comments:  
---------
	The relatively minor shortcomings of this draft have been
exhaustively digested on the following lists:

	DHC Working Group (dhcwg@ietf.org)
	IETF-Announce (ietf-announce@ietf.org)
	IETF-Discussion (ietf@ietf.org)

People commenting in the (public) discussion include all of the 
following (no special order - some complaining, some defending):

	John C Klensin
	Frank Ellermann
	Jeffrey Hutzelman
	Ralph Droms
	Matt Larson
	David W Hankins
	Dave Crocker
	Fred Baker
	Harald Alvestrand
	Keith Moore
	Stig Venaas

	The draft is 5 pages long - meaning that it has less than two 
pages of non-template content.

	If any one thing has emerged consistently in the discussion,
it is that there are some areas that need clearing up.  I have been
following the discussion, and have reviewed the document itself.  I
have nothing new to add to this discussion except to congratulate 
the authors on having created so succinct an Internet Draft as a
candidate for Proposed Standard.

	However, I fully support Ralph Droms' suggestion that the ID
be taken back under the DHC working group aegis (cooperating with 
the DNSOP working group) and modified - per his suggestions - i.e.

	1. clarify the use case motivating this option
	2. clarify/reword the phrase "domain suffix"
	3. simplify the reference to RFC 1035 encoding

I would add to this, in addition, that the clarifications referred 
to in number 2 above should include clarifying the entire phrase 
starting with:

"The domain suffix in the 'domain suffix' field MUST include only one
 item, ..."

	From the discussion, I believe that phrases "domain suffix" and 
"one item" both need some clarification.