[renum] Gen-art telechat review: draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-06.txt

[Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>]

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
< http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-05.txt
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: April 1, 2013
IETF LC End Date: April 10, 2013
IESG Telechat date: May 16, 2013

Summary: Ready with nits (that border on minor issues)

This update improved the readability significantly, and addressed my 
major concern about being able to build a list of the gaps. Thank you.

There are a few issues from my last call review that are still not 
addressed.
I have left the classification of minor issue vs nits the same as the 
original review to make referring to the earlier review easier,
but please consider all of these Nits. The IESG will need to decide 
whether to escalate them.

I've trimmed away the points that were addressed.

On 4/1/13 3:46 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
> ----------------------
> Minor issues:
>
> The document currently references 
> draft-chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout several times.
> That document is long expired (2006). It would be better to simply 
> restate what is
> important from that document here and reference it only once in the 
> acknowlegements
> rather than send the reader off to read it.
This version still references that long expired draft. There was also 
conversation on apps-discuss
about making that reference normative. IMHO, this is not the right way 
to treat the RFC series, and
strongly encourage moving the text that you want to reference into 
something that will
become an RFC.
>
>
> Should section 8 belong to some other document? It looks like 
> operational renumbering
> advice/considerations, but doesn't seem to be exploring renumbering 
> gaps, except for
> the very short section 8.2 which says "we need a better mechanism" 
> without much explanation.
Afaict, this wasn't addressed at all. In particular, "we need a better 
mechanism" is still all that
section 8.2 says.

>
> Section 5.1, first bullet. The list below "the impact of ambiguous M/O 
> flags" says things like
> "there is no standard" and "it is unspecified". I think you are trying 
> to say that there is
> ambiguity in what's written, not that nothing's written. This entire 
> list would benefit from
> being recast in terms of what needs to be done (what are the gaps?).
This text remains unmodified.
>
> ----------------------
> Nits/editorial comments:
>
> There are a few sentences ending with "etc." in the document. Please 
> consider deleting the
> word from the list - it doesn't help each sentence make its point.
There were some changes, but mostly these still exist. I'll leave 
pressing this point further to the RFC Editor.
>
>
> Seciton 7.1: The first bullet does not parse. If I guess its meaning 
> correctly
> (that it would be benificial to tell hosts that local DNS has been 
> updated and
> they may want to make fresh queries), please be careful with the 
> wording. The
> hosts don't know which names are likely to resolve locally.
This text remained unchanged, and when coming back to the document for a 
re-review
(which is somewhat like coming back to an RFC you've read before just 
for reference),
it's even harder to understand what it's trying to say than it was when 
reading the document
linearly.

I think you are trying to say
"A notification mechanism may be needed to indicate _to_ hosts that a 
renumbering event has _changed how local recursive DNS servers will 
respond_. That mechanism may also need to indicate that such a change 
will happen at a specific time in the future."

>
> Section 7.1, third bullet - This isn't obviously about notification. 
> Why is it
> in this section? What's the gap this is trying to identify?
This text was unchanged.
>
> Section 9.4 - what is it about these that make them gaps, much less 
> unsolvable gaps.
> Is this discussion in the wrong section of the document?
This is now section 10.3 and is mostly unchanged. It's still not clear 
why this discussion is in the "unsolvable gaps" section.