[IPv6]Mohamed Boucadair's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-addr-assign-02: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Mohamed Boucadair via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Mohamed Boucadair has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6man-addr-assign-02: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-addr-assign/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Brian, Suresh, and David,

Thank you for writing this document.

Also, thanks to Giuseppe Fioccola (opsdir) for flagging that the “current IANA
review state is Not OK” and to the authors for the follow-up.

I will be balloting “Yes” but I’m holding a DISCUSS to zoom into the name
inconsistency issue.

# Rename (or not) the “Internet Protocol Version 6 Address Space” IANA registry

After reading the appendix (which wasn’t actually introduced early in the
document), I think that we need to adopt a consistent approach: either we add a
new IANA action to update the name or use the name as currently maintained by
IANA when referring to the registry (and remove the appendix).

The main body of the document uses a mix of “Internet Protocol Version 6
Address Space” (Section 5) vs. “IPv6 Address Space” (abstract, Section 1).

I don’t think this is critical per se but better to be consistent here.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

# Introduction

## Avoid text that won’t age well: currently, recently, is currently, etc.
## s/regional address registries/Regional Internet Registries (RIRs)
## Consider the following:

OLD:
   is currently shown as "IESG approval", whereas for major allocations

NEW:
   was shown as "IESG approval" till the publication of this document, whereas for major allocations

## s/RFC 1881/[RFC1881]: Cite as reference. Idem for similar occurrences in the document.

# Section 2

(1) Cite the IANA registry:

OLD: Portions of the IPv6 address space are shown in the registry
NEW: Portions of the IPv6 address space are shown in the registry [IANA1]

(2) “recent” won’t age well. Consider the following change:

OLD:
   It may be noted that the recent allocation for [RFC9602], which was
   processed as a working group document, did indeed follow the more
   stringent "IETF Review" process proposed by this document.

NEW:
   The new stringent "IETF Review" process was followed for the
   allocation requested in [RFC9602], which was processed as a working
   group document.

Thank you.

Cheers,
Med