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

[Punana Lebo <[e-mail]>]

Hello I am new to this and I hope my comment is appropriate The examples in recommendation 7 and 8 in section 2.2.3 have been swapped. In other words, an example given for recommendation 7 (0:0:0:0:0:ffff:192.0.2.1 should be shown as ::ffff:192.0.2.1) must be  for recommendation 8 (2001:0db8:0000:cd30:0000:0000:0000:0000/60 should be shown as 2001:0db8:0:cd30::/60) and vise versa. Regards Keolebogile   

    On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 6:32 PM, Brian Haberman <[e-mail]> 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?

2. Section 2.6.1 captures some information about reserved IPv6
multicast addresses, but not all of them. I think it would be
beneficial to point to the IPv6 Multicast Address Allocation registry
maintained by IANA, much like the way Section 2.3 points to the IANA
registries.

3. Also in Section 2.6.1, the names of reserved addresses, like "All
Nodes Addresses", were made all lowercase. Was that intentional? Given
that IANA refers to them with capitalization, it would seem that we
need to be consistent. So, I would either retain the capitalization in
this document or ensure that Section 3 directs IANA to update the
names in the registries.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[e-mail]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------