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

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Wed, 11 January 2017 00:48 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.hinden@gmail.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 C1C251296A0; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 16:48:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 28sb3QfnPVK3; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 16:48:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it0-x241.google.com (mail-it0-x241.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::241]) (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 952DF129642; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 16:48:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it0-x241.google.com with SMTP id q186so14600112itb.1; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 16:48:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references :to; bh=5hSK+HWimDLvWja1Ndt7Aj85zsyCrx0ugM/z8GhdpZ4=; b=iHBo8vXXWVPzIgerCrKt6/GUpFMNx8jXFThtGd4yT0dXW9Gr1dlrlyNjmCa9b/XWl9 SqND/mqH0AWkZDlkR7HdiNL+/rMReqldbxDD2b4nhxFrYfi1uU1GBWG/SHoHBQF/YGX0 YqgijPQHu4w08jkBBNLq9UQcZZ9IZT9agj98ir8kgKmxUPnoAEzFzzhTeYtcJOvUmYS2 0ajNB80hUgab8dj26ZtNRR9hDTf3TfA29lN6JX4PFdEHCoSEGj07Mo/yDtz2mbm+twIq Xk4fR8SwdAcPzuvxxYHwqmNvYIMuysAuukAWd6jxWtOL1AngJaQNDAdoTh6D54Sx7xgs ysUQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=5hSK+HWimDLvWja1Ndt7Aj85zsyCrx0ugM/z8GhdpZ4=; b=n3dz/vw7UgWDbm+43NCkQFNqWhaVQ2+MGq4gEbc6cXWC4Bp0YL56hnK8xDNASRMYkB v57ICzBhjKaNLOn6m48O1DrwIncZFeFAmGRjLPHIQc4forz7KtDKCpNPxbF+9QCpYaCm W9JL5mRjJ4OZjBw/9moqUsP/AtmcCkjAVcJNKxECK/OIrvs8L+3llSeUJ/MIGJuAv5az 4Kp0q4YxuZWc8dT1txNemkmh9iR9D4CQG8oFYtVNJH0NZ03cUJ0aJ5qkL/L+g4cOb1eH 3vuAQatLWJDLlymxegmL2ZsgYGilCKFR2Pxm8Yz4SPMEs8oyZzpa2kHyGeAfHRF+C6MV pr3Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJ4upYsBBa2j3Ck2bhmpQFr6kMarYC1xjLOVHoxuo0mLCUoomd/vI0qbrWVHDtbmg==
X-Received: by 10.36.216.70 with SMTP id b67mr5971921itg.5.1484095698855; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 16:48:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.16.224.219] ([209.97.127.34]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a23sm9082324itb.11.2017.01.10.16.48.17 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 10 Jan 2017 16:48:17 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FD57D4D2-A77B-43A6-8C23-ADA2DCC4A99F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
Subject: Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <148406593094.22166.2894840062954191477.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 16:48:15 -0800
Message-Id: <64999467-1B39-4548-8E5F-A20005D022E2@gmail.com>
References: <148406593094.22166.2894840062954191477.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/rOS_YJfQc6kLKBOUOlvNuHAuWMc>
Cc: draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis.all@ietf.org, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, 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 00:48:23 -0000

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.

> 
> 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.

That makes sense.  Something like a new paragraph at the end of the section like:

Additional defined multicast address can be found in the IANA IPv6 Multicast Address Allocation registry [XXX]

XXX: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-multicast-addresses/ipv6-multicast-addresses.xhtml.

> 
> 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.

It was capitalized in RFC4291.  It looks like the change was introduced in draft-hinden-6man-rfc4291bis-01.   I think may have been accidentally part of changing the text addresses to lower case as part of the RFC5952 update.  I agree it should be the way it was in RFC4291.  Will change.

Thanks,
Bob