Re: [Gen-art] Genart review: draft-ietf-6man-reserved-iids-01

Hi Bob,
   Thanks for the comments. Please find responses inline.

Robert Sparks wrote:
> The last sentence of section 3 seems to put a (new?) normative 
> restriction on the behavior of protocols (like dhcpv6) defined in other 
> documents. Should this document call out what it's updating?

It is not really a normative restriction. It is more an opt-in behavior 
that documents can use to avoid using these IIDs. I do have a list of 
RFCs that need to be updated, but I did not know if I should put them 
here in this document as the list might be out of date very quickly.

> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> Nit - I'm probably missing a point in the "Possible solutions" section - 
> as I read it, it is attempting to justify using a registry instead of 
> asking documents to explicitly point to the two RFCs it calls out as 
> defining reserved IID ranges because the number of specifications to be 
> updated would be large (the sentence here has a grammar problem that 
> I'll send directly to the editor). Why would these same documents not 
> need to be updated to point to the registry? (I'm not disagreeing with 
> the registry - I just don't understand what is being argued in this part 
> of the section.)

Maybe it is not clear in the text but I will try to explain my reasoning.

Let's say this change affects 10 RFCs that would need to point to this 
registry. If we take the other path of referring to the two existing 
RFCs that allocate this reserved IIDs, if a new spec pops up to reserve 
an IID, each of the 10 RFCs need to be updated again. And there would 
still be no place that contains a complete listing of RFCs that reserve 
IIDs.

Thanks
Suresh

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art