Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Mon, 13 February 2017 21:10 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.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 A01C41298C6; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 13:10:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 y_t-88jS3QY6; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 13:10:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 61B6D129584; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 13:10:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from unescapeable.local ([47.186.26.91]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v1DLA9PG049421 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 13 Feb 2017 15:10:09 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [47.186.26.91] claimed to be unescapeable.local
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
To: gen-art@ietf.org
References: <148702008942.25043.12909317206946516033.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <f093a040-6b11-2985-9256-877f1675adea@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 15:10:09 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <148702008942.25043.12909317206946516033.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Y-_9ZGMaA9zb7bmzBeAEe3FH6YI>
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
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: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 21:10:12 -0000

And the tracker caught this, but to be complete in the archives, the 
Summary should have said
"Ready for publication as an Internet Standard but with nits that should 
be considered before proceeding"


On 2/13/17 3:08 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
> Reviewer: Robert Sparks
> Review result: Ready with Nits
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
>
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
> Reviewer: Robert Sparks
> Review Date: 2017-02-13
> IETF LC End Date: 2017-03-01
> IESG Telechat date: 2017-03-02
>
> Summary:

>
> I have three small points for the group to consider:
>
> 1) In editing for this bis document, one bit of text was lost.
> RFC4291 said this in its section 2.4.5:
> "Global Unicast addresses that start with
>   binary 000 have no such constraint on the size or structure of the
>   interface ID field."
> Without it, the various places remaining the the document that say
> things like "except those that start with the binary value 0000"
> such as that appearing in section 2.4 of _this_ document leave
> the reason behind the exception a mystery.
>
> 2) At the point in the text where the modified EUI-64 format
> interface
> identifier text was moved to the appendix, this document notes that
> these derived interface identifiers are no longer recommended (end of
> 2.4.1). Consider repeating that at the first line of the new Appendix
> A.
>
> 3) Appendix B looks like something groups normally ask the RFC Editor
> to
> delete. If that was your intent, please add instructions to the RFC
> Editor
> so they don't have to ask. If you planned to leave it, a summary of
> the
> changes rather than a chronolog of what draft version changes were
> made
> in would be much more useful to future readers. (Such a summary would
> be welcome in any case.)
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art