IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Int-area] draft-manner-router-alert-iana WGLC

Roland Bless <bless@tm.uka.de> Mon, 05 May 2008 15:38 UTC

Return-Path: <int-area-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: int-area-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-int-area-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F6473A6B36; Mon, 5 May 2008 08:38:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: int-area@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-area@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E95703A6C26 for <int-area@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 May 2008 08:38:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2R2GjJNF9UiG for <int-area@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 May 2008 08:38:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de [141.3.10.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 399B93A6E09 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 May 2008 08:38:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from i72ms.tm.uni-karlsruhe.de ([141.3.70.5] helo=smtp.ipv6.tm.uni-karlsruhe.de) by iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtps id 1Jt2lK-0000x8-9a; Mon, 05 May 2008 17:38:00 +0200
Received: from vorta.tm.uka.de (vorta.ipv6.tm.uni-karlsruhe.de [IPv6:2001:638:204:6:21b:fcff:fe96:fe02]) by smtp.ipv6.tm.uni-karlsruhe.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A9CF2FC0B0; Mon, 5 May 2008 17:37:59 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vorta.tm.uka.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2563F10413; Mon, 5 May 2008 17:37:59 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <481F29D6.5030608@tm.uka.de>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 17:37:58 +0200
From: Roland Bless <bless@tm.uka.de>
Organization: Institute of Telematics, University of Karlsruhe
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.1) Gecko/20060111 Thunderbird/1.5 Mnenhy/0.7.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
References: <480CF125.1010206@piuha.net> <481F1272.4010603@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <481F1272.4010603@piuha.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0
Cc: draft-manner-router-alert-iana@tools.ietf.org, Internet Area <int-area@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] draft-manner-router-alert-iana WGLC
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <int-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/int-area>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: int-area-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: int-area-bounces@ietf.org

Hi Jari and all,

Jari Arkko wrote:
> I have not seen any reviews yet. Please take the time to look at this
> draft, as several reviews are necessary in order to move the document
> forward.

The overall document is fine for me, but there could be a statement
about the alignment or non-alignment of IPv4/IPv6 RAO value registries.
So as far as I read the document both registries are independently
managed by IANA. If this is the case, please state so in section 3. If
an allocation request in one registry should automatically allocate
the same value in the other registry it should be mentioned. If there
are technical reasons to not align the registries for future
allocations, there should also be statement in the draft.

Other than that I have only some minor editorial comments:
sec. 1:
   There can be up to 65536 values for the RAO.  Yet, currently there is
   only a repository for IPv6 values.  No repository or allocation
   policies are defined for IPv4.

I find the term repository somewhat confusing and I'd prefer
the term registry (as usual and mentioned in RFC 2711). So I propose the
following text change:

   There can be up to 65536 values for the RAO.  Yet, currently there is
   only an IANA managed repository for IPv6 values as specified in RFC
   2711.  No registry or allocation policies are defined for IPv4 RAO
   value so far.

sec. 2:
   One difference betwen the specifications for the IPv4 and IPv6 Router

s/betwen/between

   values (1-65535) are reserved.  No mechanism is provided for the
   allocation of these values by IANA.
proposed change to:
   values (1-65535) are reserved.  Neither a management mechanism
   (e.g., such as an IANA registry) nor an allocation policy are
   provided for the IPv4 RAO values.

sec. 3.2:
   currently).  The reason is that it is a duplicate value, aggreagation

s/aggreagation/aggregation

Regards,
 Roland
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email