Re: AD Evaluation : draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64-06

Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com> Sun, 03 November 2019 21:58 UTC

Return-Path: <furry13@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8184D1200C1; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 13:58:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 7jKFAzcL8Ql7; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 13:58:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x736.google.com (mail-qk1-x736.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::736]) (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 2F6B512001E; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 13:58:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x736.google.com with SMTP id a194so15709988qkg.10; Sun, 03 Nov 2019 13:58:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=P5FIW0VmnQRR1ugNdtmps2V0vS5N3BATgHks4CInV/o=; b=dfwRaNreDsMJjcK/VkkkRrBXpruTXoeLLx0NNCQwi9xLUg3MvebAUx+1zHAAUJBuF2 spntVcgGfjF9f91cCThC+PpbdHCaHDpY3g1JkTTyql8v6vI0Eji8eYrKuzuJvuaw+7+l DG/fObv1ybgUY7/sOqdnjH8VC6bjhECa/OtUrWe7T/SgyjWfMXL9YKFyfMnnq1qs+g3C 3AASwTP3V43kdMB5zrTTEG9KDr1EFgvogWsMbv+Lgug3iVuHvwYmZqaZUt7Yz/gPW8Nu mCXdVl4Ru+wegPGXVMZKQ0vjfSwPltNI3UUR9gpHBTwlxnWWyWl9gNYoDPnNsNDg9Kcv 9kmQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=P5FIW0VmnQRR1ugNdtmps2V0vS5N3BATgHks4CInV/o=; b=a63GwAB7gf+CK4fnZOl98pHFPfNDGPQXFVIfOWfOIcqim3qUjGExCZknI+JYB/LV5S FPYKuLCBlR/8ge7TaFz0KK42L8X9lbbSliIwarT7EmBWWT/AaNjj7LGQdIauJ5sMhisu PVoVXiVVAgJGQ/NjqEdSdqjkJ4IRLEi9R2UgtQdhvaA4XF6zpgZCihepPUNxIozfJUbY HZAjBnQaiZYfupEReaJ6+hjq6IhazWLBwzIXbSUwYnK51uDUCM6ykl+yCHbZPZONJboe RzKpfe7XvPzMYKVdJepcdcjn9FSFXNWNfOE5mbMiWZo5+o3O5duPyaLUHYeFIygzcsbx JUgw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVepVWAQmCt+kDnvyBUUF7HRvKiMaclxwDMfFZ4d3H1Yv6SWVoX jim+WBibTEzlfPva16REdOqTTl4ABPePKjFXYEE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyternlxL51pjdmRsyymqXjLcLUIQkdvrChLlbxYv+CDatxUwZmC1pnhfw2Xzwe75UXsKJWs68OLXGjQqX8b8g=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:48d2:: with SMTP id v201mr2531115qka.277.1572818287974; Sun, 03 Nov 2019 13:58:07 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <F1B31C38-7CDB-4057-A573-D6AF76B264D3@kaloom.com>
In-Reply-To: <F1B31C38-7CDB-4057-A573-D6AF76B264D3@kaloom.com>
From: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 08:57:56 +1100
Message-ID: <CAFU7BASEnMTZ71h6sZ3q1SajxtFFrn2dQVEHWiutuG6G+rWJqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: AD Evaluation : draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64-06
To: Suresh Krishnan <Suresh@kaloom.com>
Cc: "draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/0V0dxkcKP_jpwYdwEh7if5bOu44>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2019 21:58:11 -0000

Hi Suresh,

Thanks a lot for your review!

On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 2:50 PM Suresh Krishnan <Suresh@kaloom.com>; wrote:
> * Section 4
>
> Please use a documentation prefix, say 192.0.2.0/24, instead of the RFC1918 address currently used in the example.

Actually I'd agree with Lorenzo here..IMHO 10.0.0.0/8 case describes a
realistic scenario while 192.0.2/024 would look a bit artificial.  If
the text was saying 'if the operator would like to route all private
address space  through NAT64 device A' instead of
'if the operator would like to route 10.0.0.0/8 through NAT64 device
A' we would not be using the example address space here, would we?

Would it be better if that sentence says:
''For example if the operator would like to route RFC1918 address
space, e.g. 10.0.0.0/8  through NAT64 device A'?

> * Section 5
>
> The use of the term “lifetime” or “life time” to denote both the intended period of use and the value of the Lifetime field which is one-eighth of the intended value is a bit confusing. Can you deconflict this by calling the field “ShortLifetime" or something similar?

How about 'Lifetime Multiplier'?

-- 
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry