[MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-rfc3171bis-04
Alfred Hönes <ah@tr-sys.de> Wed, 12 November 2008 16:11 UTC
Return-Path: <mboned-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: mboned-archive@lists.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-mboned-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77BFD28B56A; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 08:11:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: mboned@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mboned@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D1943A6A3B for <mboned@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 09:17:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.558
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.558 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.307, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pTGOjeMWQ8S2 for <mboned@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 09:17:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from WOTAN.TR-Sys.de (gateway.tr-sys.de [213.178.172.147]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D995E3A67FD for <mboned@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 09:17:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ZEUS.TR-Sys.de by w. with ESMTP ($Revision: 1.37.109.26 $/16.3) id AA118288164; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 18:16:05 +0100
Received: (from ah@localhost) by z.TR-Sys.de (8.9.3 (PHNE_25183)/8.7.3) id SAA07411; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 18:15:58 +0100 (MEZ)
From: Alfred Hönes <ah@tr-sys.de>
Message-Id: <200811071715.SAA07411@TR-Sys.de>
To: michelle.cotton@icann.org, dmm@1-4-5.net
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 18:15:58 +0100
X-Mailer: ELM [$Revision: 1.17.214.3 $]
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 08:11:12 -0800
Cc: mboned@ietf.org
Subject: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-rfc3171bis-04
X-BeenThere: mboned@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mail List for the Mboned Working Group <mboned.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned>, <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/mboned>
List-Post: <mailto:mboned@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned>, <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="hp-roman8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Sender: mboned-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: mboned-bounces@ietf.org
Hello, following up from draft-cotton-v4mcast-guidelines to draft-ietf-mboned-rfc3171bis-04, I would like to again submit a few comments. (1) Front matter See item (3) below! (2) Abstract It's only a matter of 'marketing' : I suggest to shuffle the words in order to give the _constructive_ part first, then the _destructive" one (obsoletes). See also (3) below. (3) Section 1, second paragraph. Sorry, I do not understand the rationale and how that shall work: This document is a revision of RFC 3171 [RFC3171], which it | obsoletes. It should retain RFC 3171's status as BCP 51. It also ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | obsoletes RFC 3138 [RFC3138]." ^ The draft indeed is a full functional replacement for RFC 3171 and it covers all topics addressed there. But if the document replaces (Obsoletes) RFC 3171, RFC 3171 will be deleted from the rfcxx00 file and the BCP index, and the new RFC should become the new BCP 51, according to the rules stated in the procedural RFCs and the latest IAB drafts of the RFC Series and the RFC Editor. These rules explicitely state that, notwithstanding historiocal procedural flaws that (admittedly) have occured, BCP numbers are functional and stable in the same way as STD numbers. Therefore, I strongly recommend to elide the second sentence above. Furthermore, the unmatched trailing double-quote should be removed. Hence, the above paragraph should be modified to say: This document is a revision of RFC 3171 [RFC3171], which it | obsoletes. It also obsoletes RFC 3138 [RFC3138]. To carry this information over to the RFC metadata, the draft front matter should be amended by the clause: " Obsoletes: 3138, 3171 (if approved)" For completeness, the Abstract should mention *both* obsolescenses. (4) Section 1, third paragraph, and Section 1.2 The 3rd paragraph in Section 1 belongs into Section 1.2. The first sentence in it should be updated to accommodate for the new BCP 26, RFC 5226: - update ref. tag: [RFC2434] --" [RFC5226] - update terminology: "IETF Consensus" --> "IETF Review" Further, the second sentence is a duplicate of the existing text in Section 1.2 and should be deleted. In the second paragraph of the present Section 1.2, 'is defined as' seems to be slightly improper; I suggest to say "designates" instead. (5) Section 3 ff. -- complete CIDR notation My earlier comments on the rules set forth for CIDR notation still apply. I have attached below the still relevant excerpts of that message (with a dew typos corrected) -- see item (0)(a) there. I really would like to see the IETF eat its own doggy-food! Otherwise BCPs are going to loose their credibility. (6) Section 3 My earlier comments on the registry content still apply. See item (1) and its sub-items in the attached message excerpts. To avoid confusion and further reference to legacy flaws, I strongly recommend to update and streamline the registry file *before* publication of this memo as an RFC (preferably much sooner!), and include that version in section 3. (7) Section 8 -- typos Yhe last sentence of Setcion 8 should be corrected: | Note that this block as initially assigned to the VMTP transient vvvvvv ^^^ | groups IANA [IANA]. --- | Note that this block was initially assigned to the VMTP transient v ^^^^ | groups [IANA]. (8) Section 9 -- spurious word replication One of the flaws originally reported has not been corrected. Please fix: s/ of of / of / . (9) Section 9.2 -- textual improvement The current text might still cause confusion between the two namespaces under consideration. Therefore, I suggest to shuffle the wording, in order to group the values shown close to the terms referring to them, and add the missing AS numbers, for completeness: [RFC3138] delegated assignment of the GLOP sub-block mapped by the [RFC1930] private AS space (233.252.0.0 - 233.255.255.255) to the RIRs. [...] --- | [RFC3138] delegated to the RIRs the assignment of the GLOP sub-block | (233.252.0.0 - 233.255.255.255) mapped by the private AS space | (64512-65534) and the IANA reserved ASN 65535 [RFC1930]. [...] Note: Historical records indicate that the distinction between ASN 65535 and the private use ASN range 64512-65534 predates RFC 1930 and has never been changed in the IANA registry. Some sources support the opinion that RFC 1930 primarily wanted to indicate that the whole AS range 64512-65535 is reserved and "not to be advertised on the global Internet", and therefore did not make the distinction. (10) Section 12.1, second paragraph The previous draft version has been discussed in item (6) of the old review quoted below. In the meantime, the entry for the ST Multicast Groups block has been restored in the IANA registry, and a ref. to RFC 1190 has been added to the draft text: | The IANA should also review assignments in the AD-HOC, DIS Transient | Groups, and ST Multicast Groups [RFC1190] blocks and reclaim those addresses that are not in use on the global Internet (i.e, those applications which can use SSM, GLOP, or Administratively Scoped addressing, or are not globally routed). Still, the term "DIS Transient Groups" is undefined, and no useful reference has been given. To give a specific indication to the questionable (?) nature of this block, I suggest to enclose that term in quotes. (11) Section 17.2 Please delete the outdated entry [RFC2434] and add -- according to collation oreder -- at the end of the section a new entry [RFC5226] . Kind regards, Alfred Hönes. -- +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ | TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes | Alfred Hoenes Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys. | | Gerlinger Strasse 12 | Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18 | | D-71254 Ditzingen | E-Mail: ah@TR-Sys.de | +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ ------------ begin excerpts of original message ------------ > From: Alfred Hönes <ah@TR-Sys.de> > To: michelle.cotton@icann.org, dmm@1-4-5.net > Message-Id: <200802102332.AAA13809@TR-Sys.de> > Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 00:32:57 +0100 (MEZ) > Subject: draft-cotton-v4mcast-guidelines-00 Hello, after studying the Internet-Draft authored/edited by you, draft-cotton-v4mcast-guidelines-00, I'd like to submit a few comments, mostly addressing textual flaws I found in that memo. ... (0) General (a) The basic "strategic" document for CIDR notation now is BCP 122, RFC 4632, and that document clearly states (in section 3.1, at the bottom of page 5): vvvvvvv | [...] In CIDR notation, a prefix is shown as a 4-octet quantity, just like a traditional IPv4 address or network number, followed by the "/" (slash) character, followed by a decimal value between 0 and 32 that describes the number of significant bits. As your draft also is intended for BCP, it should conform to established terminology and notation and not use "popular" yet sluggish shorthand notation for prefixes. Therefore, I strongly recommend to expand all prefixes in the draft to the above mentioned full 4-octed ("dotted quad") form. (b) ... [[ signed off in current draft ]] (1) Section 3 There are multiple issues with the table in section 3: (a) Without any explanation, the third column of that table holds a cornupia of different entries: abbreviated prefix, decimal count of addresses, or number of prefixes of specified length. It is not clear whether there exists rationale for these entries, beyond legacy. (b) I strongly suspect that the address in the second column of the third line is wrong; 224.0.2.0 - 224.0.255.0 should be: 224.0.2.0 - 224.0.255.255 ^^^ (This is a very old legacy issue with the registration file!) Correspondingly, the lenght given must be increased by 255. (c) This table has (RFC) line width problems. I therefore suggest considering to replace the first two columns by a one-column, strict prefix notation of the assigned ranges, and to give the size in the new second column. Also, a table heading would perhaps add much to clarity. (d) The reader of this table most probably intuitively expects that the table contain non-overlapping ranges together filling up the available range for multicast addresses. Yet there is a gap in the table, and the line for the EGLOP / extended ad-hoc block breaks the non-overlapping assumption. Taking this new assignment fixed, I suggest to make it visible that this line is subordinate to the line above it, by making use of indentation -- which will be much easier to apply in the new structure I propose -- and to add lines for the missing 224.3.0.0/16 ... 224.251.0.0/16 ranges. Let's try. How about using this format (I have filled in the gaps and also added a "Reference" column; see also (6) below!): Address Range Size Use Reference --------------- --------- ------------------------------- --------- 224.0.0.0/24 256 Local Network Control Block [IANA] 224.0.1.0/24 256 Internetwork Control Block [IANA] 224.0.2.0/24 \ 65024 ... ) = AD-HOC Block [IANA] 224.0.255.0/24 / 254 /24s 224.1.0.0/16 65536 -reserved- (ex ST-II Multicast Groups) [RFC1190] 224.2.0.0/16 65536 SDP/SAP Block [RFC2974] 224.3.0.0/16 \ 16318464 ... ) = -reserved- 224.251.0.0/16 / 249 /16s 224.252.0.0/14 262144 -reserved- (ex "DIS Transient Groups") 225.0.0.0/8 \ 117440512 ... ) = -reserved- 231.0.0.0/8 / 7 /8s 232.0.0.0/8 16777216 Source Specific Multicast Block [RFC4608] 233.0.0.0/8 16515072 GLOP Block [RFC3180] 233.252.0.0/14 262144 AD-HOC Block (ex eGLOP Block) [IANA] 234.0.0.0/8 \ 83886080 ... ) = -reserved- 238.0.0.0/8 / 5 /8s 239.0.0.0/8 Administratively Scoped Block [RFC2365] (some subranges: -reserved-) With the ref. [IANA] , I have tries to tag the blocks where IANA currently performs assignments from. ... [[ various nits signed off in current draft ]] (6) Section 12.1 The draft says: The IANA should also review assignments in the AD-HOC, DIS Transient Groups, and ST Multicast Groups blocks and reclaim ... The terms, "DIS Transient Groups" and "ST Multicast Groups" are not defined or used elsewhere in the document. These terms should be explained. Note: The former term could be found in the registry w/o explanation; the latter term has disappeared from the registry file; I found an old archived version where 224.1.0.0/16 was labelled with this term and [RFC1190]. Interestingly, [RFC1190] is listed as an Informative Reference, but does not appear anywhere in the text. I have (provisionally) added both terms as "ex" refs to the table above, for the purpose of exposition. When consensus is reached that these address spaces indeed shall be reclaimed, it should be considered to join the 224.252.0.0/14 range with the immediately preceding ranges, in the table. (7) Section 12.2 ... [[ signed off in current draft ] ... (8) Section 17.2 ... [[ mostly signed off in current draft ]] ... A ref. to BCP 122, RFC 4632 should perhaps be added for CIDR prefix notation. Best regards, Alfred Hönes. ------------ end of original message ------------ _______________________________________________ MBONED mailing list MBONED@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned
- [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-rfc3171bis-04 Alfred Hönes
- Re: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-rfc3171bis-04 Dave Thaler