Re: [addr-select-dt] draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-02

[Arifumi Matsumoto <[e-mail]>]

Tim,

On 2011/03/11, at 9:16, Tim Chown wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I have edited the txt file, largely to tidy up the English in a few places.   There's nothing I disagree with in the text.   So you could diff the file with yours to see if you want to apply the changes.

Thank you for your review and comments.
I'm sorry that I could not addressed all issues in -02.

> 
> Some other comments:
> 
> We don't cite draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-sol-03 or draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-req-07 - would this be worth doing?    Should probably have a final pass through those to ensure everything is captured in the 3484 bis text?

The rfc3484-revise does not mention about the whole problem related to address selection, but it does focus on the present issues for RFC 3484 itself.

It may be helpful if we mention about the whole problem for the readers to grasp the big picture, too. I'll put some texts about them in the introduction, where problem statement and requirement, and the solution documents will be referenced.

> Note the address selection considerations reference is now a WG item: draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-considerations-02; this needs updating in your text.

Applied.

> 
> I found this sentence a little clumsy:
> "When a destination address DA, DB, and the source address of DA
>   Source(DA) are on the same subnet and Source(DA) == Source(DB), DNS
>   round robin load-balancing cannot function. "
> Maybe it can be written a little more clearly?

Sorry, writing clear english is always an assignment for me. X(

How about the following text ?

"When a destination address DA, DB and the source address S are on the
same subnet, the present longest matching rule always choose the same
destination address."

> Quite a few of the citations (reference labels) appear after the full stops in sentences, not before.   Corrected in the attached text.

I hope all were corrected.

> 
> Do we want to add a rule for 2001:db8:: ?     If 3ffe:: is in there...

I do not know.
Do we see 2001:db8:: addresses on a real packets ?

> And I would still love to see a way to add a rule to put privacy address preference in there.   This would be a great way to help answer the concerns in long email threads currently running in other lists :)

Do you think it should be addressed in RFC 3484 revision, or in the policy distribution draft, or totally different way ?

Kindest regards,

> 
> Tim
> 
> <draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-02-tc.txt>
> 
> On 9 Mar 2011, at 10:38, Arifumi Matsumoto wrote:
> 
>> All,
>> 
>> here attached the -02 version of RFC 3484 revision work.
>> I'm very sorry about the long suspension on this item,
>> despite your commitment on it.
>> 
>> If you can comment on it, I think I can incorporate it
>> before the cut-off.
>> 
>> Kindest regards,
>> 
>> <draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-02.txt>
>> --
>> Arifumi Matsumoto
>> NGN System Architecture Project
>> NTT Service Integration Laboratories
>> E-mail: [e-mail]
>> TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> addr-select-dt mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/addr-select-dt
> 
> _______________________________________________
> addr-select-dt mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/addr-select-dt