RE: (ngtrans) WG Last Call on IPv4 Survey

"Philip J. Nesser II" <phil@nesser.com> Sat, 29 June 2002 00:12 UTC

Received: from patan.sun.com (patan.Sun.COM [192.18.98.43]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA29681 for <ngtrans-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 20:12:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from engmail2.Eng.Sun.COM ([129.146.1.25]) by patan.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA17375; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 18:12:09 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from sunroof.eng.sun.com (sunroof.Eng.Sun.COM [129.146.168.88]) by engmail2.Eng.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id RAA09648; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 17:11:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sunroof.eng.sun.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sunroof.eng.sun.com (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g5T0BCk7013783 for <ngtrans-dist@sunroof.eng.sun.com>; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 17:11:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by sunroof.eng.sun.com (8.12.4/8.12.4/Submit) id g5T0BCaO013782 for ngtrans-dist; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 17:11:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: sunroof.eng.sun.com: majordomo set sender to owner-ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com using -f
Received: from engmail4.Eng.Sun.COM (engmail4 [129.144.134.6]) by sunroof.eng.sun.com (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g5T0B8k7013775 for <ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com>; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 17:11:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nwkea-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.42.14]) by engmail4.Eng.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/ENSMAIL, v2.1p1) with ESMTP id RAA20775 for <ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com>; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 17:11:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from host238.2alpha.com ([192.104.59.100]) by nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA10768 for <ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com>; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 17:11:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from A30P ([192.104.59.110]) by host238.2alpha.com (8.11.3/8.11.0) with ESMTP id g5T04Bc04578; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 17:04:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Philip J. Nesser II" <phil@nesser.com>
To: 'Brian E Carpenter' <brian@hursley.ibm.com>, 'Tony Hain' <alh-ietf@tndh.net>
Cc: ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans-chairs@sun.com, randy@psg.com
Subject: RE: (ngtrans) WG Last Call on IPv4 Survey
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 17:11:01 -0700
Organization: Nesser & Nesser Consulting
Message-ID: <06e701c21f01$76c0f260$bd3b68c0@A30P>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
In-Reply-To: <3D1C5447.8B0151C9@hursley.ibm.com>
Importance: Normal
Sender: owner-ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Philip J. Nesser II" <phil@nesser.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Brian,

Thanks for the nits.  I will look into them.  

Everyone Else,

Please take Brian's suggestion to heart.  This document covers a vast
amount of protocols and topics, well beyond any single person's ability
to master.  Looking at it as a whole is amazingly daunting, but taking a
few RFC's that you wrote, implemented, contributed to, or are familiar
with and looking at that specific subset is a much easier task.  

--->  Phil  

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com
[mailto:owner-ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com] On Behalf Of Brian E
Carpenter
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 5:19 AM
To: Tony Hain
Cc: ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com; ngtrans-chairs@sun.com; randy@psg.com;
Philip J. Nesser II
Subject: Re: (ngtrans) WG Last Call on IPv4 Survey

This is a major piece of work and Phil has done a great job, but
I fear it isn't quite done yet. I think everybody needs to read it
and nit-pick. If we each find 4 or 5 nits the document will be
much improved.

My nits:

I'd remove section 1.4. I fully agree with it, but it is a comment
to the IESG and should be sent to them separately.

There are editing glitches in section 3.19.2.

There is the assertion that ARP and RARP (3.37 and 3.38) have no IPv4 
dependencies. There is perhaps a sense in which that's true, but in fact
they are IPv4-only protocols with no applicability to IPv6.

Section 4.04 (RFC 1188) should simply point to RFC 2019.

Section 4.05 (RFC 1191) should simply state that PMTU discovery is a
mandatory part of IPv6 and refer to RFC 1981.

   Brian

Tony Hain wrote:
> 
> This is an ngtrans working group last call for comments on advancing
the
> following document as Informational:
> 
>   Title: Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Standards
>   Author: Phil Nesser
>   Document: draft-ietf-ngtrans-ipv4survey-02.txt
> 
> Please send substantive comments to the ngtrans mailing list, and
minor
> editorial comments to the author.
> 
> This last call period will end two weeks from Monday on July 15, 2002.
> 
> The ngtrans co-chairs, Tony / Alain / Margaret