Document: draft-ietf-mipshop-mos-dhcp-options-13
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2009-04-27
IETF LC End Date: 2009-04-27
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a proposed standard. I do have a small number of "nit" comments which may or may not be worth consideration.

Major issues:

None.

Minor issues:

None.

Nits/editorial comments:


-- Section 1, paragraph 6: 

Please expand MN on first use. (I see you expand it in the following paragraph. It's also in the abstract, but it's worth doing it again in the body.)

-- Section 2, sub-opt code table

I find it a bit odd to reserve the entire remaining sub-code space with a normative "MUST NOT be used", when the IANA section defines a table for it. The fact that you define an IANA table with the "standards action" criteria seems sufficient. (Note that this applies to the other options in this draft as well.)

-- Section 2, last paragraph before the sub-option format diagram:  
"Its minimum length is 4, and the length MUST be a multiple of 4. In case there is no MIH server available, the length is set to 0."

I know I'm being pedantic, but technically that means the minimum length is 0. (Note this applies to the IPv6 version as well.)

-- idnits reports the following, which I include without prejudice.


> idnits 2.11.09
>
> tmp/draft-ietf-mipshop-mos-dhcp-options-13.txt:
>
>   Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
>   http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
>    
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
>
>      No issues found here.
>
>   Checking nits according to 
> http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt
> :
>    
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
>
>   == It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 
> 0 form
>      feeds but 14 pages
>
>
>   Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
>    
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
>
>      No issues found here.
>
>   Miscellaneous warnings:
>    
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
>
>   == The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but 
> was
>      first submitted before 10 November 2008.  Should you add the 
> disclaimer?
>      (See the Legal Provisions document at
>      http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.).
>
>
>   Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
>    
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>      (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative  
> references
>      to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
>
>      No issues found here.
>
>      Summary: 0 errors (**), 2 warnings (==), 0 comments (--).