Draft:  draft-ietf-radext-delegated-prefix-01.txt
Reviewer: Spencer Dawkins [spencer@mcsr-labs.org]
Review Date:  Friday 6/2/2006 5:45 AM CST
IESG Telechat Date:  Thursday, 08 June 2006

Summary: Ready for publication as Proposed Standard

Ralph has shown me suggested RFC Editor text that addresses all my Last Call 
review issues. This isn't in the web ballot yet, but when it appears, I'll 
be happy.

The only serious concern I had was on the Length/Prefix Length definitions, 
so I'd say "ready for publication as Proposed Standard".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Review Date: Tuesday 5/30/2006 5:58 PM CST
IETF LC Date: 6/9/2006

Summary: this draft is almost ready for publication as a Proposed Standard. 
It is short, and clearly written.

I have four observations - there may be DHCP conventions I don't know about, 
but this is how things look to me.

- The relationship between "Length" and "Prefix-Length" seems 
underspecified. If what you are saying is

   Length - the length of the entire attribute, in bytes. At least 4 (to 
hold Type/Length/Reserved/Prefix-Length for a 0-bit prefix), and no larger 
than 20 (to hold Type/Length/Reserved/Prefix-Length for a 128-bit prefix)

  Prefix-Length - the length of the prefix being delegated, in bits. At 
least 0 and no larger than 128 bits (identifying a single IPv6 address).

I'm guessing, and if you are actually saying something else, I don't know 
what it could be :-)

- Does "Reserved - Always set to zero" ever get validated as zero by a 
receiver?

- I completely missed the three-line, two-row "table" at the end of Section 
3. If you could at least indent it, and maybe even draw ASCII boxes around 
it, the specification would be much easier to grok.

- It would also be nice to have a pointer to a reference for the definition 
of "Framed-IPv6-Prefix" in Section 3, but that's extremely minor.

Please look at these comments along with any other Last Call comments you 
may  receive.