Re: [renum] draft-ietf-6renum-enterprise: review

On 12/12/2012 12:16, S Moonesamy wrote:
> At 00:55 12-12-2012, Sheng Jiang wrote:
>> For overlapping, yes, there are many document mentioned renumbering,
>> only because it is a common issue. Different from other documents that
>> mention renumbering as a minor relevant consideration, the
>> 6renum-enterprise is dedicated for renumbering issue. It focuses on
>> enterprise scenarios and makes a comprehensive analysis, which is not
>> provided by the other documents.
> 
> I reviewed draft-ietf-6renum-enterprise-04 (see
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg08511.html
> ).  RFC 4192 and RFC 5887 are more informative than the draft.  I read
> the other 6renum drafts (which are not normative in this draft) to try
> to get a better idea of the subject the working group is trying to
> address.  I don't think that the analysis in this draft would be that
> helpful to enterprises.  

Actually, that isn't the intention. Analysis is not the same thing
as a solution. I think we need to change the title and Introduction a bit
to make this more clear.

> The bottom line, in my humble opinion, is that
> it will not help IPv6 deployment significantly.

What it helps is to document how we derived the gap analysis (coming
soon, it has not yet left the WG). Then the gap analysis will drive
whatever specification or BCP work needs to be done.

> The 6renum charter says:
> 
>    "The task of the 6RENUM working group is to document existing
> renumbering
>     practices for enterprise site networks and to identify specific
>     renumbering problems or 'gaps' in the context of partial or site-wide
>     renumbering."
> 
> In Section 1, it is mentioned that best renumbering practices are
> introduced.  That's at odds with the charter.

Well, in the sense that we imply a judgment, perhaps, but is it really
useful to delete the word "best"?

> In Section 4, the paragraph for DNS starts with a reference to RFC
> 2874.  The draft then has to explain that A6 RRs are not recommended. 

Yes, because one of the main reasons A6 was proposed was to assist
renumbering. The main reason that RFC 6563 was published this year
is that 6renum noticed that RFC 2874 was not marked "Historic"
and was still confusing some people.

> If I am not mistaken there is only one line about ACLs in the draft. 
> That's the part which breaks stuff.  I would pay attention to ACLs as it
> can have a more significant impact than forgetting about DNS changes.

Why? Are application programmers coding IPv6 addresses into their
applications instead of using FQDNs?

Of course ACLs are important, and we have been reminded by another
reviewer that they should be mentioned in draft-ietf-6renum-static-problem
too. But what more is there to say than "they need to be updated"?
New mechanisms are out of scope in this draft.

    Brian

> 
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
> _______________________________________________
> renum mailing list
> renum@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/renum
> 