Re: [renum] AD review draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-05

Given that I don't have control yet, and we're 12 days from the meeting 
I'll initiate IETF LC on this after the coming meeting.

thanks
joel

On 2/22/13 12:24 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> Got it, thanks.
>
> On 2/22/13 12:08 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Hi Joel,
>>
>> Thanks for the review.
>>
>> On 22/02/2013 05:01, joel jaeggli wrote:
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> I took a look at
>>>
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-05
>>>
>>> overall I think it's fairly well put-together document.
>>>
>>> A couple things,
>>>
>>> While it's certainly readable, a proofreader would probably tighten up
>>> the language a bit. There are several sentences in in 5.2 for example
>>> that would benefit from the addition of a preposition in strategic
>>> locations.
>> Yes, or we could do that after IETF Last Call, as you prefer.
>>
>>> While multihoming is mentioned several times, the necessity of engaging
>>> in source routing or some other mechanism, e.g. logical VRFs per PA
>>> prefix in order to preclude black-holing of traffic while 
>>> multihoming or
>>> while both prefixes are valid is not as far as I can tell and that 
>>> seems
>>> to be a missing piece of the router renumbering gap analysis.
>>>
>>> I see some discussion on the list that post-dates the latest revision
>>> titled Late gap in the gap analysis. Has that been resolved to the
>>> satisfaction of the WG?
>> The concrete suggestion was s/may/will/ in the following:
>>
>>>     7.3. Renumbering Monitoring
>>>     While treating renumbering as a network event, mechanisms to 
>>> monitor
>>>     the renumbering process may be needed.
>>      Brian
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> renum mailing list
> renum@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/renum
>