IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Thu, 12 January 2017 21:23 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EC4C12952C; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 13:23:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ihmqukt2VTn1; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 13:23:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x243.google.com (mail-qk0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E94D129508; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 13:23:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x243.google.com with SMTP id a20so4523780qkc.3; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 13:23:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=GPn2mmtkWbb7HcnLjVnLMoAjEEe6EW8/1dSGsa3/JjI=; b=T+u2Xv21uuW4Wj1OnQ4bDZaPJ6KjsRuaqV1FtfNNpOYtGoltMOpjw2juuFsOK6T3Dw HhnsXbvsi2aj4cqlA2H6UwQycpyTT90E2TMBy+t+GbGZ3eC0XcyLlG0459WYI6Yl0DG2 M4TQCKxWQ5znJt8phknmy3huf5sIZXa2Ef6DJpgAqhrRY7roJjpixZZzX5xSe0ET2h/Y g8hJp5nkfIpM5SSLzd2nuD0C/iwWZSFvWH0fUUV503uzYSpySuzk/vg+Cx6wSfVCGDKf s/Co1Z5VSMBRhc7pHgvnf6t/ZxDeqUJuQ8jxtYL/eZAc3QGrizmbBU86o0OXp2gJxwm/ 8PpQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=GPn2mmtkWbb7HcnLjVnLMoAjEEe6EW8/1dSGsa3/JjI=; b=qJWFjx88YcHj8rqdKyOj5zaVNeOFOkJcccxuAv/ilXqtADS24tvBbu2BrC+HojTYiH FYGxU56SggStd5y9pBMa+151l7z1tEc0IOCq4gejzbOkqOYfmL7yZQ1rswXtZjQlIAe3 tki99hG2dXefnE19aJEpRByiIqnPqLY1srYo9AAAYVyxEFGSCc49gvMDAPmtNrHF2NWU 1D5AMWPjxdc05QeHd3710b1p7crmekaOmHUE/jx7BlXJf5V4PzjBaXgrv2ZJxMOJ/y5c uj5FEZF5MzuBzQqFg8NrRt1rFK/rKYOxn/gubBpmf+u2e1y4y+ju9pUL6QziWbydSM+z 21XQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXIHdr3nbHVBWX2PmU7g3xWxKpUIXY+FtGIZ5YBH8FYVe85tfJQUwL4AnlWDwDBuTg==
X-Received: by 10.233.216.7 with SMTP id u7mr14905579qkf.220.1484256184466; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 13:23:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.16.224.219] ([209.97.127.34]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z29sm7592799qtz.16.2017.01.12.13.23.02 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 12 Jan 2017 13:23:03 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1059f68b-b7af-8261-304b-01515c340369@innovationslab.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 13:23:01 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A090C20E-FB95-44B7-B663-0D44092277EA@gmail.com>
References: <148406593094.22166.2894840062954191477.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <64999467-1B39-4548-8E5F-A20005D022E2@gmail.com> <1059f68b-b7af-8261-304b-01515c340369@innovationslab.net>
To: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/RimHKEvf3MkJhJXAGofnETcDkPo>
Cc: draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis.all@ietf.org, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, int-dir@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 21:23:07 -0000

Brian,

> On Jan 11, 2017, at 7:32 AM, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi Bob,
> 
> On 1/10/17 7:48 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
>> Brian,
>> 
>> Thanks for the review!
>> 
>>> On Jan 10, 2017, at 8:32 AM, Brian Haberman
>>> <brian@innovationslab.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Reviewer: Brian Haberman Review result: Ready with Nits
>>> 
>>> I just have a few comments/questions on this draft. Overall, it is
>>> in pretty good shape...
>>> 
>>> 1. Section 2.2.3 looks like a complete re-production of RFC 5952,
>>> but I don't see a reference to 5952. Is the intent to deprecate
>>> 5952 since its content is now contained within 4291bis?
>> 
>> I didn’t include a direct reference in the Section as incorporates
>> the changes, but it is included in Appendix B describing the
>> changes.
>> 
>> No current intent to deprecate RFC5952 as it updates RFC4291.  I
>> don’t see very much value in deprecating (Historic?) the updating
>> RFCs.
> 
> I will agree with Randy that there is useful info in 5952 that people
> need to see. Adding a reference to 5952 here would point people in the
> right direction.

Makes sense, I will add a reference to RFC5952 in the next version of the draft.

Thanks,
Bob

> 
> Regards,
> Brian
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email