[v6ops] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-07: (with COMMENT)
Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 16 August 2017 21:48 UTC
Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietf.org
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85F0013271A; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 14:48:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host@ietf.org, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host.all@ietf.org, v6ops-chairs@ietf.org, rbonica@juniper.net, v6ops@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.58.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <150292010454.15048.16601305330115893059.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 14:48:24 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/60Mw--G4aGUrJVBhLa6ejexCG0o>
Subject: [v6ops] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-07: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 21:48:25 -0000
Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-07: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I have no technical comments, but a number of editorial comments: - General: I think this could use another proofreading and/or editing pass for the following issues: -- Inconsistent tense--especially use of future or present continuous. -- Wordy and convoluted sentences -- Use of "/" as a conjunction. - Abstract: The abstract is longer and more detailed than is useful. The last paragraph could have stood alone as the abstract. It's not clear to me if "hosts (subscribers)" means something different than "hosts" in context. -1: Please expand "IA_NA" on first use. s/"This document will focus..."/"This document focuses..." "As such the use of IPv6 SLAAC based subscriber and address management for provider managed shared network services is the recommended technology of choice, as it does not exclude any known IPv6 implementation." Does this document make that recommendation, or is that some pre-existing recommendation? -3: "The Best Current Practice documented in this note is to provide a unique IPv6 prefix to hosts/subscribers devices connected to the provider managed shared network." The sentence hard to follow. Consider "This document recommends...". I'm not sure how to interpret "hosts/subscribers devices" "Each unique IPv6 prefix can function as control-plane anchor point to make sure that each subscriber is receiving" s/"... subscriber is receiving ..."/"... subscriber receives..." -4: Is "First Hop Provider Router" different than "First Hop Router"? In the last bullet (L-flag=0), are NEVER and ALWAYS in all-caps expected to have different meaning than if they had normal capitalization? The sentence starting with "The architected result of designing the RA as documented above..." is convoluted and hard to follow. "... however it SHOULD NOT use stateful DHCPv6 to receive a service provider managed IPv6 address": Is that really a normative requirement, or is it a statement of fact about existing requirements? "it SHOULD send this traffic to the First Hop Provider Router." : statement of fact? - 5: "To reduce undesired resource consumption on the First Hop Router the desire is to remove UE/subscriber context in the case of non-permanent UE, such as in the case of WiFi hotspots as quickly as possible. " Convoluted sentence. "A possible solution is to use a subscriber inactivity timer which, after tracking a pre-defined (currently unspecified) number of minutes, deletes the subscriber context on the First Hop Router." s/which/that (Consider " ... timer that deletes...after a predetermined number of minutes" -7: "The combination of both IPv6 privacy extensions and operator based assignment of a Unique IPv6 Prefix per Host provides each implementing operator a tool to manage and provide subscriber services and hence reduces the experienced privacy within each operator controlled domain." I have trouble following that sentence. Is the point to say that providing tools to manage and provide services reduces privacy in general? As worded, it almost sounds like this is meant as a feature, which I assume is not the case.
- [v6ops] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf… Ben Campbell
- Re: [v6ops] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-… Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)