Document: draft-ietf-dhc-dna-ipv4-11.txt
Reviewer: John Loughney
Date: 01 June 2005

Summary:  Most of the comments would be good to address if you revise the draft before IESG review; otherwise I can re-review it during IESG review for the General Area.

My major comments:

1) DNA WG stands for "Detecting Network Attachment", perhaps the title of this
   doc should use the same terms.

2) Abstract says:
   "The time required to detect movement (or lack of movement) ..."  is a bit
   strange. Do you need to detect lack of movement?  I would imagine detecting
   that the host is still attached is more relevant.

3) Should add "Link Up" to a terminology section - there was discussion of what
   link up means in the DNA working group, and I think that what the outcome was
   in that wg should apply here.

4) Page 5 says:

   "To improve robustness, this document suggests that hosts behave
   conservatively with respect to assignment of IPv4 Link-Local
   addresses, configuring them only in situations in which they can do .."

   A reference to the IPv4 Link Local document would be useful here.

5) Bottom of page 15 says: 

   "Thus, associating to the same SSID is a necessary, but not .."

   I think that you mean:
 
   "Thus, associating to the same SSID is a necessity, but not .."
                                                  ^^^
6) The security considerations section is a bit worrying.  I'm not sure
   what should be added, but I don't think there is enough guidence to
   implementors on how to deterimine if running DNA is safe or not.  I'd
   probably like some short text on this.