Document: draft-ietf-dhc-vpn-option-11.txt
Reviewer: Spencer Dawkins
Review Date: 2009-10-21
IETF LC End Date: 2009-10-16 (sorry!)
IESG Telechat date: 2009-10-22 (double-sorry!)

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a Proposed Standard. 
I had two questions about 2119 language in section 5, as follows:

5.  Relay Agent Behavior

   A DHCPv4 relay agent SHOULD include a DHCPv4 VSS sub-option in a
   relay-agent-information option [RFC3046], while a DHCPv6 relay agent
   SHOULD include a DHCPv6 VSS option in the Relay-forward message.

Spencer (minor): is this functionality supposed to work if either SHOULD is violated? I'm wondering why these are not MUSTs.

   The value placed in the Virtual Subnet Selection sub-option or option
   SHOULD be sufficient for the relay agent to properly route any DHCP

Spencer (minor): I don't think this is a 2119 SHOULD. I'm thinking "more like a statement of fact" - perhaps "will be sufficient"? If it's really 2119, why isn't it a MUST?

   reply packet returned from the DHCP server to the DHCP client for
   which it is destined.