[v6ops] Re: Call For Adoption: draft-link-v6ops-6mops

[Jen Linkova <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tom,

On Sun, Aug 11, 2024 at 8:25 PM tom petch <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Not an easy read because of the terminology and style e.g..
>
> NAT44 I do not see defined in the IETF abbreviation list

Noted, will be added to the terminology in the next revision.

> " pure IPv6-only networks remain uncommon
>    outside of the mobile carrier space.  This dual-stack approach is ..."
> Eh?  I expect the second sentence to follow on from the subject, the main clause of the previous one.  Here they seem to be contradictory.

Oh I see. Indeed that paragraph needs improvement. Would it be better
if it says:

Pure IPv6-only networks remain uncommon outside of the mobile carrier
space, as most network operators initially deploy IPv6 alongside their
existing IPv4 infrastructure.
This dual-stack approach is seen as a necessary transition phase,
allowing operators to gain experience with IPv6 while minimizing
disruption.
?

>
> "two additional key elements:
>    *  The network provides NAT64 ([RFC6146] ) functionality ([RFC6146]),
>       enabling IPv6-only clients to communicate with IPv4-only
>       destinations.
>    *  The DHCPv4 infrastructure processing DHCPv4 Option 108 as per
>       [RFC8925]."
> The first bullet I understand. The second is a clause seemingly floating in  space - I do not understand


How about:

"an IPv6-mostly network is very much similar to a dual-stack one with
two additional key elements:

1) NAT64 ([RFC6146]) , which enables IPv6-only clients to communicate
with IPv4-only destinations.

2) The DHCPv4 infrastructure processing DHCPv4 Option 108 as per [RFC8925].
"

> "The term "IPv6-only capable endpoint""
> Sometimes capitalised, sometimes not.  If this is a technical term, then I think capitalisation is needed throughout.

Thanks, will fix in the next version.

> I also note that it is not defined as a term in the way that
>    *  IPv4-Only Endpoint:
>    *  Dual-Stack Endpoint
> are.

The document refers to Terminology section of RFC8925, where
IPv6-only-capable host is defined. Would you prefer the terminology to
be copied?

> "Dual-Stack Endpoint (Not IPv6-Only Capable)"
> At ths point, "Not IPv6-Capable has not been defined  It would be easier to follow if it were.
>
> "Dual-Stack Endpoint (Not IPv6-Only Capable)"
> Is there a technical term in here which needs defining? or two thereof?

Noted, dual-stack will be defined in the next version.

> And so on...
>
> Like I say not an easy read.  I suspect that if I read and took on board all 19 pages at once it would be clear to me but my memory wants things in bite-size chunks, a page or two at a time, leading on from one chunk to another to the conclusion.

To be honest I'm not sure what to do here. I'll review the doc to
clean up the terminology, but any other actionable comments would be
appreciated.

-- 
Cheers, Jen Linkova