Re: [Last-Call] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment-07

Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Wed, 26 October 2022 10:50 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@eggert.org>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5008FC1522D7; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 03:50:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=eggert.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ypiRB_Zto6y5; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 03:50:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.eggert.org (mail.eggert.org [91.190.195.94]) (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 7F1DAC1522BA; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 03:49:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:dbd:1611:1173:8420]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.eggert.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DF1CF1DBB36; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 13:49:39 +0300 (EEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=eggert.org; s=dkim; t=1666781379; bh=nDWxxCvQEDbg1kO6KDqvUaiUzv9iizVc6pzKSsoaFt8=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=K80FMAjgfMFqd1cOH2PqDQ8ZQ3XHNiTAXWMxmVsbhoCoIY0Mys7KbkE06TCJHOg3R oHQKQEpr3Hv9Cy91S5PF/LXCt1NM7pbH5pdDyjEYmyCpWjU5mTsS/4m2rJhIGiJbrV 6bplA5Co68UUqMTP9l3GATH119O15sRMzbI/otmk=
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DFC0181A-636B-4895-BC85-F799261DF4C0"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.200.110.1.12\))
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
In-Reply-To: <166405161705.61866.6455483258800684672@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 13:49:29 +0300
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, v6ops@ietf.org
Message-Id: <4B8EF23B-2653-4A53-AC2F-51C3C889DDC2@eggert.org>
References: <166405161705.61866.6455483258800684672@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-MailScanner-ID: DF1CF1DBB36.AA038
X-MailScanner: Not scanned: please contact your Internet E-Mail Service Provider for details
X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/oK63XTzEgdJScCMD6IxWbEP3KwE>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment-07
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 10:50:31 -0000

Robert, thank you for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot for this document.

Lars


> On Sep 24, 2022, at 23:33, Robert Sparks via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> 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-v6ops-ipv6-deployment-07
> Reviewer: Robert Sparks
> Review Date: 2022-09-24
> IETF LC End Date: 2022-09-26
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary: Mostly ready for publication as an Informational RFC, but with nits to
> address before publication.
> 
> I appreciate that this document represents a significant amount of discussion,
> and agree that obsoleting RFC6036 is the right thing to do.
> 
> However, it is unclear who this document is for. It doesn't feel like it's for
> people working on standardization or regulation, nor does it feel like a
> roadmap into other work or sources of information. Parts of it _begin_ to feel
> like it's intended to help people who are managing networks going through
> transition, but the language in those sections is not addressed to them. Is it
> primarily a guide to the narrative IPv6 evangelists could use when approaching
> other audiences?
> 
> I don't object to publishing this in its current form (but suggest addressing
> the below nits), but I really wonder if it would be more useful to reconsider
> the audience(s) and goals and write more explicitly to them.
> 
> It's hard to tell what in this document is repetition of results from other
> sources, and what is new synthesis and analysis.
> 
> There is language that should be adjusted to reflect being published in
> archival series. Example: "This document intends to"
> 
> I recognize that this is a matter of style, but I find the use of phrases like
> "it may be interesting to", "it is worth mentioning", and similar to be
> distracting. Please consider removing the phrases - the point of the sentences
> will become stronger.
> 
> There are a few sentences that could be adjusted to make them easier for
> non-native english speakers to translate. Places like "Their actions cannot be
> objected, ". It would be good to scrub these before they get to the rfc-editor.
> 
> The document is acronym-heavy, and some acronyms are used so few times that
> expanding them on _every_ use is better than just on first use. Example: FBB.
> 
> It is uncomfortable to see "It is important to say that IPv6 is not more or
> less secure than IPv4". First - are you telling the readers that it is
> important for them to say this? Or stating that it's important for this
> document to say it? Second, the rest of the document doesn't support the
> statement. Instead, it almost directly contradicts it, by pointing to the
> relative maturity of implementations, the larger potential attack surface, etc.
> Why is this sentence (at the beginning of 5.4.1) in the document? Could the
> statement simply be removed?
> 
> Has potential selection bias been considered in the analysis of the survey in
> appendix A? Perhaps it would be more accurate to title section 3.2 "IPv6 among
> Internet Service Providers in Europe"?
> 
> At "theoretical ratio", I suggest instead of using that phrase, you explain why
> you needed to say it. I suggest something like: "This is not a claim that each
> person uses this many addresses", or simply talking about the ratio without
> this disclaimer - the readers will already be familiar with the characteristics
> of per-capita metrics.
> 
> In 3.3, last sentence of the first paragraph - it's not clear that you actually
> state otherwise in the text that follows. If you do, stating otherwise needs to
> be done more clearly. If you don't, you don't need this sentence.
> 
> Micro-nit in figure 3: Wolrdwide -> Worldwide
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art