> I promised to make a review of this I-D. My comments can be found here:
> http://deadcoderssociety.net/6man.pdf >
> There are two main things:
> 1) I suggest to remove all text that references into the future regarding ongoing work etc. That will look a bit weird when actual RFCs come out etc.
About this point, I see several RFCs that refer to internet drafts.
Do we really need to remove all the refereces for i-ds ?
> 2) It is not clear what happens when DASP_OPTION is received from multiple sources and in all cases Section 4.2. "trust" requirements are met. Will the last received policy overwrite all previously learned?
> Also I did not quite get the "leak of privacy information". Could you elaborate that a bit further in the I-D. And finally, regarding the prefix encoding in the option I would myself prefer 1 octet granularity over 4.. or is there a specific reason for selecting 4? (DHCPv6 options do not have alignment requirements)
> - Jouni
> On Nov 9, 2011, at 10:21 AM, Arifumi Matsumoto wrote:
>> at Quebec, Tim Chown presented about address selection documents
>> discussed in 6man WG, and requested reviewers for the draft
>> slides are http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/81/slides/dhc-13.pdf >>
>> IIRC, one reviewer was chosen at that time, and the other was left
>> So, my questions are
>> the review was submitted somewhere ?
>> the other reviewer was chosen ?
>> Arifumi Matsumoto
>> NGN System Architecture Project
>> NTT Service Integration Laboratories
>> E-mail: arifumi@... >> TEL +81-422-59-3334 FAX +81-422-59-6364
>> dhcwg mailing list
>> dhcwg@... >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg >