Re: last minute review of draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4-03.txt

[Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>]

Hi Thomas,

On May 12, 2005, at 12:50, Thomas Narten wrote:

> I know this is late, but better late than never...
>
> Overall, the document is good, but I think that the document would
> benefit from slight tweaking w.r.t. to multicast. I.e., I assume that
> an "addressing architecture" should be complete and at a minimum offer
> pointers to the relevant pieces. I don't think it quite does that in
> the case of multicast.
>
>> 2.7 Multicast Addresses
>
> This section only mentions the T flag, and not the P flag. That doesnt
> seem right, since the P flag is clearly in use now and not "0". Was
> there a concern about a possible normative reference? I don't think
> there needs to be. Suggestion:
>
> Old:
>>                                       +-+-+-+-+
>>         flgs is a set of 4 flags:     |0|0|0|T|
>>                                       +-+-+-+-+
>
> New:
>
>                                       +-+-+-+-+
>         flgs is a set of 4 flags:     |0|0|P|T|
>                                       +-+-+-+-+
>
> and then add something like:
>
>     The definition and use of the P bit can be found in [RFC 3307].
>
> and make the reference informative.

Bob and I discussed this and he will be putting text together that
clarifies the bits with informative references to RFC 3306 (not 3307)
and RFC 3956.

>
> Also, there are no IANA considerations for multicast addresses. But,
> if you look at the IANA web page
> (http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-multicast-addresses) it says:
>
>> IPv6 multicast addresses are defined in "IP Version 6 Addressing
>> Architecture" [RFC2373].  This defines fixed scope and variable scope
>> multicast addresses.
>
> But, this document doesn't use the terminology "fixed" or "variable"
> scope. So things seem out of alignment. Does this document need to
> straighten things out?
>
> Or, maybe it's the case that RFC 3307 is (now) the definitive
> document?  (IANA doesn't seem to have picked up anything from
> there...). But 3307 document doesn't seem to use the "fixed/variable"
> terminoligy either.
>
> So, it's not immediately clear to me what is needed to get the IANA
> page cleaned up, but since it _might_ involve tweaking text in this
> document, I think it would be good to understand  what needs to be
> done before approving this document.
>
> It's also not immediately clear to me that this document and rfc 3307
> are completely aligned, e.g., in terms of consistent terminology. And
> this document doesn't seem to reference 3307, which seems incomplete.

This is a bigger problem than should be handled in an addressing
architecture document.

My suggestion is that we work this issue through the IAB's Ad-hoc IPv6
group since they are already focusing on registry clean-up.  This can be
another sub-bullet on that work list.  I think trying to document to 
IANA
that they need to overall a registry in this spec will be too confusing.

Regards,
Brian

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[e-mail]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------