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

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

Fernando:

> 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.
> 
> Thoughts?

This point from RFC 4941 is what I was talking about.

   One of the requirements for correlating seemingly unrelated
   activities is the use (and reuse) of an identifier that is
   recognizable over time within different contexts.  IP addresses
   provide one obvious example, but there are more.  Many nodes also
   have DNS names associated with their addresses, in which case the DNS
   name serves as a similar identifier.  Although the DNS name
   associated with an address is more work to obtain (it may require a
   DNS query), the information is often readily available.  In such
   cases, changing the address on a machine over time would do little to
   address the concerns raised in this document, unless the DNS name is
   changed as well (see Section 4).
> 
> 
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> 
> 
>> 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...'
> 
> ?

That is an improvement.  Thanks.

> 
> 
>> IDnits reports:
>> ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section.  (See Section
>>    2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist 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.
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> Thanks a lot!

Russ