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

Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Wed, 11 January 2017 15:32 UTC

Return-Path: <brian@innovationslab.net>
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 DB1711294EC; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 07:32:25 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 O9YQ6YRtGqvV; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 07:32:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC73F1294C5; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 07:32:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D679388124; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 07:32:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clemson.local (swifi-nat.jhuapl.edu [128.244.87.133]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2768C3280AE3; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 07:32:24 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
References: <148406593094.22166.2894840062954191477.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <64999467-1B39-4548-8E5F-A20005D022E2@gmail.com>
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
Message-ID: <1059f68b-b7af-8261-304b-01515c340369@innovationslab.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 10:32:22 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <64999467-1B39-4548-8E5F-A20005D022E2@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="d59iFcoIMFGEF7arDNWKOmruGlNCQP7fF"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/icuDuZhlJT2qfjmHJ6Ia3I1xcWo>
Cc: draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis.all@ietf.org, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, int-dir@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: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 15:32:26 -0000

Hi Bob,

On 1/10/17 7:48 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
> Brian,
> 
> Thanks for the review!
> 
>> On Jan 10, 2017, at 8:32 AM, Brian Haberman
>> <brian@innovationslab.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 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?
> 
> I didn’t include a direct reference in the Section as incorporates
> the changes, but it is included in Appendix B describing the
> changes.
> 
> No current intent to deprecate RFC5952 as it updates RFC4291.  I
> don’t see very much value in deprecating (Historic?) the updating
> RFCs.

I will agree with Randy that there is useful info in 5952 that people
need to see. Adding a reference to 5952 here would point people in the
right direction.

Regards,
Brian