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

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jen,

> On Nov 3, 2019, at 4:57 PM, Jen Linkova <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Suresh,
> 
> Thanks a lot for your review!
> 
> On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 2:50 PM Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]> 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’?

I think this formulation is a bit better but I liked Mark Smith’s idea on my Additional Documentation Prefixes subthread (Thanks Mark!!) of using x’s instead of the 0’s here to obfuscate. Then it will be clear to readers that it is private space while not being directly usable. i.e. do something like

"For example if the operator would like to route RFC1918 address
space, e.g. 10.x.x.x/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’?

I would have assumed that the multiplier in this case would actually be 8. How about “Scaled Lifetime”? Does that work?

Thanks
Suresh