Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4941bis-10

Fernando Gont <> Sat, 12 September 2020 08:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D82C3A0EFA; Sat, 12 Sep 2020 01:14:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.845
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.845 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.948, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VVf7EH0-4hXn; Sat, 12 Sep 2020 01:14:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 046213A0921; Sat, 12 Sep 2020 01:14:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:1088:5583:d414:95e6:ba0f] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:1088:5583:d414:95e6:ba0f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 674BE2807DC; Sat, 12 Sep 2020 08:14:20 +0000 (UTC)
To: Russ Housley <>,
References: <>
From: Fernando Gont <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2020 03:00:13 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4941bis-10
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2020 08:14:50 -0000

Hello, Russ,

Thanks a lot for your comments! In-line....

On 11/9/20 17:16, Russ Housley via Datatracker wrote:
> Reviewer: Russ Housley
> Review result: Almost Ready
> Major Concerns:
> In Section 2.2, the discussion of DNS names comes out of the blue.  In
> RFC 4941, there was context for this discussion that has been dropped
> from this document.  Some context is needed.

I reared the text, but I don't find it as "coming out of the blue". I 
guess one could add something to Section 2.1 to include DNS names... 
but, at the end of the day, the name is just another identifier.

Or put another way, I'm not sure what's the "context" I would add if 
asked to.


> Minor Concerns:
> The Abstract says: "This document describes an extension that ...".
> It should state what protocol is being extended.  I believe this is an
> extension for SLAAC.

Will tweak to "..describes an extension to Stateless Address 
Autoconfiguration in IPv6"

> Nits:
> Section 1, first paragraph says: "... in [RFC7721],[RFC7217], and
> RFC7707."  All three should be references.


> Section 1.1, last paragraph says: '... and not to "globally reachable"
> as defined in [RFC8190].'  I think you want to say that this term does
> not imply "globally reachable" as defined in [RFC8190].  That is, it
> might be globally reachable, but it might not.

I could tweak to "..not imply 'global reachability' as defined in..".. 
but then RFC8190 only defines "globally reachable".

May be better to tweak the original text to:
'..and not to "globally reachable" addresses, as defined...'


> IDnits reports:
> ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section.  (See Section
>     2.2 of for how to handle the case
>     when there are no actions for IANA.)
> == The 'Obsoletes: ' line in the draft header should list only the
>     _numbers_ of the RFCs which will be obsoleted by this document (if
>     approved); it should not include the word 'RFC' in the list.


Thanks a lot!

Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492