Re: [Dime] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-dime-4over6-provisioning-04: (with COMMENT)

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 2:58 AM, <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Spencer,
>
> Thank you for the review.


Thank you for the quick response!


> Please see inline.
>
> Cheers,
> Med
>
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : Spencer Dawkins [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Envoyé : mardi 4 août 2015 17:24
> > À : The IESG
> > Cc : MORAND Lionel IMT/OLN; [e-mail];
> draft-ietf-dime-4over6-
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Objet : Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-dime-4over6-
> > provisioning-04: (with COMMENT)
> >
> > Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-dime-4over6-provisioning-04: No Objection
> >
> > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> > introductory paragraph, however.)
> >
> >
> > Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >
> >
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-4over6-provisioning/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > A nit - this text
> >
> >    [RFC6519] sets a precedent for representation of the IPv6 address of
> >    a border router as an FQDN.  This can be dereferenced to one or more
> >    IP addresses by the provisioning system before being passed to the
> >    customer equipment, or left as an FQDN as it as in [RFC6334].
> >                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> [Med] Fixed.
>
> > seems garbled.
> >
> > In this text
> >
> > 3.4.1.  Delegated-IPv6-Prefix As the IPv6 Binding Prefix
> >
> >    The Delegated-IPv6-Prefix AVP (AVP code 123) is of type Octetstring,
> >    and is defined in [RFC4818].  Within the Tunnel-Source-Pref-Or-Addr
> >    AVP, it conveys the IPv6 Binding Prefix assigned to the CE.  Valid
> >    values in the Prefix-Length field are from 0 to 128 (full address),
> >    although a more restricted range is obviously more reasonable.
> >                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > I wonder if "obviously more reasonable" is the right thing to say. Is
> > this saying something like "more scalable" (compared to bunches of
> > 128-bit IP binding prefixes)? Or am I misunderstanding the point?
> >
> [Med] "more reasonable" is used because hosts are usually provisioned with
> prefixes such as /48, /56 or /64 (which are "restricted ranges").
>
> We can delete "although a more restricted range is obviously more
> reasonable" if this is confusing.
>

What I was thinking, was that the value you use in the Prefix-Length isn't
because it's reasonable, it's because that's actually the provisioned
prefix length.

Deleting that text would work for me (at the level of a comment, of course).

Spencer