Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06

Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Tue, 10 January 2017 16:32 UTC

Return-Path: <brian@innovationslab.net>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7E33129D1E; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 08:32:10 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
To: <int-dir@ietf.org>
Subject: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.40.3
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <148406593094.22166.2894840062954191477.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 08:32:10 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/UETcJbN28b7hPTJ6MXsnAtrkGRI>
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis.all@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 16:32:11 -0000

Reviewer: Brian Haberman
Review result: Ready with Nits

I just have a few comments/questions on this draft. Overall, it is in
pretty good shape...

1. Section 2.2.3 looks like a complete re-production of RFC 5952, but
I don't see a reference to 5952. Is the intent to deprecate 5952 since
its content is now contained within 4291bis?

2. Section 2.6.1 captures some information about reserved IPv6
multicast addresses, but not all of them. I think it would be
beneficial to point to the IPv6 Multicast Address Allocation registry
maintained by IANA, much like the way Section 2.3 points to the IANA
registries.

3. Also in Section 2.6.1, the names of reserved addresses, like "All
Nodes Addresses", were made all lowercase. Was that intentional? Given
that IANA refers to them with capitalization, it would seem that we
need to be consistent. So, I would either retain the capitalization in
this document or ensure that Section 3 directs IANA to update the
names in the registries.