[OPS-DIR] Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
מנחם דודג' <menachemdodge1@gmail.com> Thu, 27 April 2017 11:33 UTC
Return-Path: <menachemdodge1@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 C8E80124D6C; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 04:33:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.448
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 wN5w9YFVyCbY; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 04:33:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x232.google.com (mail-lf0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::232]) (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 3AB66128BB7; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 04:33:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x232.google.com with SMTP id c80so15691597lfh.3; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 04:33:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=281VB2Czyd2l4+cxZ6vXQiWeZ3Q9IHnxyOr6lWqlWBI=; b=C6/fDWbSqBsqp9FzfcgHnZu79sVLqOK7S5Bp1hqas5MMEjfN0XXjYlpgG/CQkBibxt hifCNSiYS1QJfWGkZKrDc2/TMEToq3PanweX37UF4sBa+ZXbJV0cXLnvDUfSROaOmRKD 9DMKZ9thmQWdnVSOTOkd+ooNACsafu1GzvYvBUniVTJ2fYuBJgN4KSucaAYh0W4h1Wrv Tp7Iz4GUlUHXMtKmV0TjToWXxaEyW3jK5kZUxPXJ2JrXouWUHmAh168eGp5B/hWwEcO6 skniJQj7Y3G7jkIgiDpe7vggDhCY+42qVABHD7wd9emanrzibQk+9oCSjgABLA6941aT rMzg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=281VB2Czyd2l4+cxZ6vXQiWeZ3Q9IHnxyOr6lWqlWBI=; b=Q17qdz60Ovz37X+u2oZFDgAUJxkeL9MMqb7icxakisEibs0FmTjlUytGN0lEUGdvft +N8uZHb5DEf+pkXJqAKAF3yHwbUgxPD0N97n5w12mr8uE1fb8gtpnwQ5b9ljLAkiT+sd Tw5HD7UXYYi962aZAcIpEoaQyHQYthTPilUp+On96ot5BWjWzB86fhbg5za8+DRHq27S fb9sdWt1mmSwCYxH1bhmFPPnvmha2Zj/Fqhvpn9yAblfW3+gZNtJecQdqxu8YHEdve5M OsO284U78XVclosFSHwwceNKmgYie8AWpVK8zRMGDT/wIFsIkzqgKK/sgskVmWVJeu2T Z2rA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/7tAsEGD+kxTlaoCkm+Qv7OrIX9BrwGqu9/jimF0dMG0AysufqE AJ7TmsZEPbCCh/IYn4FpnIqhvBbAKSqw
X-Received: by 10.25.22.197 with SMTP id 66mr1700490lfw.46.1493292833123; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 04:33:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.46.1.203 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 04:33:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: מנחם דודג' <menachemdodge1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 14:33:52 +0300
Message-ID: <CAJ2jOhV_FYt1ZhWUcX+_N-Dhbd94dSXSQxK8o_hiR6Nj8=aUzw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [OPS-DIR] Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
To: ops-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis.all@ietf.org
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113f212edd34b2054e24548e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/gD7Og94bSqdqIHOHjqJjPfbaIlM>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 27 Apr 2017 11:33:58 -0000
Reviewer: Menachem Dodge Review result: Has Nits Intended Status: Standards Track Obsoletes: 4291 (if approved) Hi all, I have reviewed draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. “This document defines the addressing architecture of the IP Version 6 protocol. It includes the basic formats for the various types of IPv6 addresses (unicast, anycast, and multicast). My overall view of the document is 'Ready with nits' for publication. *Technical* No. *Editorial * The Nit tool has found the following: Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == There are 16 instances of lines with non-RFC3849-compliant IPv6 addresses in the document. If these are example addresses, they should be changed. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Line 237 has weird spacing: '...address is an...' Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: 'RFC7217' is defined on line 1109, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08 -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'I-D.ietf-6man-rfc2460bis' -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3513 (Obsoleted by RFC 4291) =================== In addition I have the following: Section 2.4.1 - Second Paragraph -- suggest to add 'the' -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *OLD: *Interface IDs must be viewed outside of the node that created Interface ID as an opaque bit string without any internal structure *SUGGEST:* Interface IDs must be viewed outside of the node that created *the *Interface ID as an opaque bit string without any internal structure Section 2.4.1 - FourthParagraph -- suggest to clarify --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *OLD:* As noted in Section 2.4, all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary value 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long. *SUGGEST:* As noted in Section 2.4, the Interface IDs of all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary value 000, are required to be 64 bits long. Thank you kindly, Menachem Dodge