Re: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-rfc3171bis-04

[Dave Thaler <[e-mail]>]

Regarding CIDR notation:

> (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.
[...]
> (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,
>    folloFrom [e-mail]  Wed Nov 12 16:01:49 2008
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
X-Original-To: [e-mail]
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E43B3A67D4;
	Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:01:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: [e-mail]
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 932B43A63D2
	for <[e-mail]>; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:01:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.416
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.416 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[AWL=0.183, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8,
	USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 zP9MqTc3gmce for <[e-mail]>;
	Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:01:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (mailc.microsoft.com [131.107.115.214])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D6873A6808
	for <[e-mail]>; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:01:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from TK5-EXHUB-C101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.18.48) by
	TK5-EXGWY-E803.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.169) with
	Microsoft
	SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.291.1; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:01:45 -0800
Received: from TK5-EXMLT-W605V.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com
	(157.54.18.79) by TK5-EXHUB-C101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com
	(157.54.18.48)
	with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.291.1; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:01:35 -0800
Received: from NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com
	([fe80::75be:c82f:ae04:55bf]) by
	TK5-EXMLT-W605V.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.18.79])
	with mapi; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:01:35 -0800
From: Dave Thaler <[e-mail]>
To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
	<[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:01:34 -0800
Thread-Topic: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-rfc3171bis-04
Thread-Index: AclE4X2nLWmCOHwRT7Cc44deuHn0JwAQOTWA
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
acceptlanguage: en-US
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-rfc3171bis-04
X-BeenThere: [e-mail]
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:[e-mail]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/mboned>
List-Post: <mailto:[e-mail]>
List-Help: <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned>,
	<mailto:[e-mail]?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]

Regarding CIDR notation:

> (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.
[...]
> (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,
>    folwed 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.

Please read
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4632
It is the language of RFC 4632 that is in error, and is being applied
in a way that was not the intent of the authors or the WG.
After agreeing on this, the authors of that RFC submitted the erratum
themselves.

Hence I believe the notation in this (and any other) docs should be left
as is, and instead BCP 122 corrected.

-Dave Thaler
_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned


lowed 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.

Please read
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4632
It is the language of RFC 4632 that is in error, and is being applied
in a way that was not the intent of the authors or the WG.
After agreeing on this, the authors of that RFC submitted the erratum
themselves.

Hence I believe the notation in this (and any other) docs should be left
as is, and instead BCP 122 corrected.

-Dave Thaler
_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned