Thanks to the authors for this, and apologies for a slightly delayed review.

I read this document and skim-read the linked draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation which describes why these fields might want to be provided by DHCPv6.

I found this document clear and easy to read - there were no nits that stood out to me other than the double-definition of the "Supported Transport" field.  While there is a chicken-and-egg problem, the RFC editor and IANA could be instructed to link things up such that section 4 immediately named the registry to look up the values in rather than hard-coding an initial table into this document, and having future readers reach this section without finding the pointer to IANA in the natural place.

Likewise once the values are assigned by IANA for the DHCP option codes, putting them directly into this document in the spots where a reader would naturally be looking would help implementations.

Overall - this document has a very long history - well done for sticking with it.  I hope one day to buy a product which uses the end result of this work and transparently configures MY home network!