Re: [Tsv-art] [v6ops] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas-11

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

[ - IETF@ (for clutter) ]


On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 4:13 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Martin,
>
> Thanks for your review!
>
> I'm working today in a new version including the comments from the SECDIR,
> OPSDIR and RTGDIR, so definitively will take care as well of your own
> comments.
>

Dear Jordi / Authors,

Please let me know (LOUDLY, so I don't miss it!) once you've had a chance
to address these....

W



>
> Responses below, in-line.
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>
>
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: v6ops <[e-mail]> en nombre de Martin Stiemerling <
> [e-mail]>
> Fecha: martes, 18 de diciembre de 2018, 9:13
> Para: <[e-mail]>
> CC: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <
> [e-mail]>
> Asunto: [v6ops] Tsvart last call review of
> draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas-11
>
>     Reviewer: Martin Stiemerling
>     Review result: Ready with Issues
>
>     This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review
> team's
>     ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were
> written
>     primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the
> document's
>     authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to
> the IETF
>     discussion list for information.
>
>     When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider
> this
>     review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
>     [e-mail] if you reply to or forward this review.
>
>     General issues:
>     - I have an issue with using RFC 2119 language in informative RFCs, as
> it is unclear
>     what normative language means in informative documents. However, I
> understand
>     that there is legacy from older documents in particular, but not
> limited to, RFC 7084.
>
> I think if we accepted this format, which in my opinion, even in an
> informative RFC, is very clarifying about what is expected from an
> implementor of this document, should not change our view now, unless we
> decide to review this in all the documents and from now on. In our case we
> have a "Special Note" in the section title, to remark it.
>
>     - The document is in parts hard to read, even for someone who has a
> background in
>     IPv4/IPv6 transition. E.g. Section 1, 2nd paragraph, about what IP
> version is used
>     where. A figure could help here.
>
> Good point, definitively will include a small figure.
>
>     Issues:
>     - Remove the DEFAULT word and replace it with default. It is very
> confusing to add
>     capital letters normative language here.
>
> As we have defined the "DEFAULT" word in the requirements language as
> well, I think it is a correct usage, in order to make it easy to
> differentiate it from other usages of "default" across the document.
>
>     - Section 5: UPnP
>
>     This section is posing requirements in an IETF document that
> incorporates non-IETF
>     standards for a matter that is solely a recommendation. Can this be
> MUST at all?
>
> Not exactly, we are defining how the CE should react in a specific
> situation, but in my understanding,  this is not changing the UPnP
> specifications. We had long debates on this in v6ops before reaching
> consensus this concrete text.
>
>     - Section 6: Code Considerations
>     This section is a collection of unfounded points without any hard
> proof that the
>     numbers are correct and tangible. Either there is a hard example on
> required
>     changes and added code size or remove it. This is an engineering
> document and not
>     a marketing document, isn't it?
>
> I guess you meant here section 7. This is based on practical experience
> with OpenWRT and with co-authors (vendors), so very tangible, and it can be
> confirmed if you look at the source code. I don't think is right to have
> references to each of the code pieces for each transition mechanism and how
> they share "code parts", it will become a long document. Instead there is
> reference to the OpenWRT page with all the packages which allows to check
> exact code size if you start adding one or several mechanisms.
>
>     Thanks,
>
>       Martin Stiemerling
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     v6ops mailing list
>     [e-mail]
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of
> the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized
> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
> use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including
> attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal
> offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this
> communication and delete it.
>
>
>
>

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in
the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
pants.
   ---maf