Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation-01.txt>
JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <jinmei@isc.org> Mon, 09 November 2009 15:09 UTC
Return-Path: <jinmei@isc.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32CEF3A6838 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 07:09:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, GB_I_LETTER=-2]
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 LN9RK2m3Kq+Z for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 07:09:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mon.jinmei.org (mon.jinmei.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:36::162]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D513C28C14B for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 07:09:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jmb.jinmei.org (host-113-167.meeting.ietf.org [133.93.113.167]) by mon.jinmei.org (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 29D8733C3B; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 07:09:58 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:09:57 +0900
Message-ID: <m27htzybsq.wl%jinmei@isc.org>
From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <jinmei@isc.org>
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation-01.txt>
In-Reply-To: <501E2743-9EFF-4D9A-A873-003DB8AF0381@gmail.com>
References: <501E2743-9EFF-4D9A-A873-003DB8AF0381@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) Emacs/22.1 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Cc: 6man Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:09:48 -0000
At Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:00:47 -0700, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote: > This message starts a 2-week 6MAN Working Group Last Call on advancing: > Title : A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation > Author(s) : S. Kawamura, M. Kawashima > as a Proposed Standard. Substantive comments and statements of > support for advancing this document should be directed to the mailing > list. Editorial suggestions can be sent to the document editor. This > last call will end on November 5, 2009. A bit belated, but hopefully later is better than never... I've read the latest version and I basically support this document to be published. I have a few comments, which I don't think are marginal (but I'm not sure if these are substantial enough to require an additional revision, either). I also have some minor nits. Non-marginal comments: 1. this document specifies *humans SHOULD* follow the recommended representation. In section 4 it states: [...] The recommendation in this document SHOULD be followed by humans and systems when generating an address to represent as text, [...] It sounds a little awkward to me to request a human follow something in this type of context, using a formal RFC2119 term (i.e., SHOULD). What exactly does that mean, and is it verifiable? To be specific, it's clear to me if we say a program that converts a wire-format IPv6 address into a textual representation SHOULD follow the recommendation, and it SHOULD produce 2001:db8::1234 when it's given 2001:0db8:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:1234. And if an implementation doesn't follow the recommendation, we can it's buggy (per the meaning of SHOULD) and the implementation should be fixed. But, when a *human* writes down, e.g., 2001:0db8::1234, which maybe on purpose or just mistyped or simply because that human misses the recommended representation, what does that mean? Would we say this person is buggy and should be fixed? IMO, it's safer and clearer to use RFC2119 terms only for programs, devices, etc. For humans, we can simply use a milder suggestion without using capital letters, e.g, "when a human writes down an IPv6 address, it is advisable that the address be spelled in the recommended representation." (and, we might also suggest that human use a convenient script to produce the "canonical" format of address, rather than directly writing down the address) 2. this draft repeatedly mentions "fees" that takes place as an effect of the additional operation cost. In my personal opinion, these statements sound awkward in a technical document such as RFC. Of course, we should generally provide a justification if we want to introduce a restriction or something new to be implemented, but IMO it's sufficient if we can show there would be non negligible overhead (or operational cost) otherwise. Whether it leads to an additional fee is largely a matter of economics, and is not always easily proved, so I think it's rather safer to not bother to mention that when we don't have to. And, I think this document would be convincing even without mentioning fees. 3. Even though this document is generally understandable, I've seen some confusing text (I'm too lazy to point out each of them, sorry). Maybe it's a job of the RFC editor, but if possible, I suggest polishing the text by someone whose primary language is English (assuming it's not the case for the document authors) before passing it to the IESG. And minor nits follow: - Section 3.2.5 s/maistakenly/mistakenly/ - Section 4.2.3 "By nature IPv6 addresses are usually assigned or allocated to end-users as longer than 32 bits (typically 48 bits or longer)." Although I can understand what this means, "addresses as longer than 32 bits" sounds awkward to me (because an IPv6 address is always "128 bits" in length). I'd suggest rephrasing this, e.g., as follows: "By nature IPv6 addresses are usually assigned or allocated to end-users from a prefix of 32 bits or longer (typically 48 bits or longer)." --- JINMEI, Tatuya Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
- 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-rep… Bob Hinden
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-text-addr… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-text-addr… Seiichi Kawamura
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-text-addr… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-text-addr… Shane Amante
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-text-addr… JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-text-addr… Seiichi Kawamura