Re: [v6ops] About draft-horley-v6ops-expand-doc

[Ed Horley <[e-mail]>]

Eric,
inline below

On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 12:00 AM Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> [Without any hat]
>
>
>
> I just saw draft-horley-v6ops-expand-doc in the tentative V6OPS agenda so,
> I read this very short IETF draft and have some quick comments:
>
>
>
>    - unsure whether V6OPS WG is the most suitable (e.g., could be INTAREA
>    or 6MAN) => it would probably end up as AD sponsored
>
> For full disclosure, I'm an IETF noob - so it was a guess which group
would be most suitable for submission. If you, Russ, Fred, and others say
it belongs somewhere else, then it belongs somewhere else. Happy to take
direction on this.

>
>    - should the status be BCP ?
>
>  I have no idea if it should be BCP so I don't have a strong opinion on
this one. If someone else has a stronger opinion let me know?

>
>    - there is a usual limitation of max 5 or 6 authors per I-D
>
> Again, don't know a lot about how many authors, etc. This idea came about
from all of us talking about how it would be useful, so we just put all of
us on it :)  It is lazy but it gives credit to everyone who helped validate
the idea.

>
>    - suggestions to the author: let’s start a discussion on the V6OPS
>    mailing list (or one above)
>
> Am I don't this right?

>
>    - unsure whether re-using the 6bone prefix is the best choice, any
>    unicast prefix out of 2000::/3 could be used
>
> I wanted to avoid doing another large block out of 2000::/3. Just felt
since 6bone was already the lowest precedence in RFC 6724 and on every
bogon and block filter already, we could do something useful with the old
space. It also means all the existing documentation, examples, blogs, etc.
out there leftover from 6bone automagically move to documentation without
the authors changing anything. Plus, I feel it is a tip of the hat to what
6bone provided to the community. I think Jim Bounds would have approved of
this, it means 6bone continues on in a way :)

>
>    - IMHO RFC 4291 should be informative
>
> Fair enough.

>
>    - references to RFC3306 & RFC3513 are never used, let’s remove them
>
> Okay, I don't see a problem with that either.

>
>    - check also all the “nits” at
>    https://www6.ietf.org/tools/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-horley-v6ops-expand-doc-00.txt
>    <https://t.sidekickopen45.com/s3t/c/5/f18dQhb0S7kF8c7MqBW4T_qld2zGCwVW8Jbw_88pTn5gW1SrRY23N1wTqW56dQ0g39DXxR102?te=W3R5hFj4cm2zwW4mKLT61Jz_WCW3LD2-b3NC1nGW43SPfD3SZ90SW4fNlyL49Nl2dW4fNSkD26QkHmW4mKDs_3K9DV8W43Wg2w3zgCH0W3T4FMr3SZ3v4W49HRqW1GC2Q8W3ZVdZ34kf6R8W4cfL8H45LM68W1GznWm1G8FG-4WtF41&si=7000000000648674&pi=7f3335cd-74e6-444f-aeb7-dc6c334f4aa8>
>
> Will do.

>
>    - fix some typos: “doumenting a multi-provder”, “non-routeable » ;-)
>
> Hahahaha, no one said I could spell or do complete sentences, I had
reviewers and an editor for my book!

>
>
> Hope this helps
>
Yes - very much so. Thanks!

>
>
> -éric
>
>
>
-- 
Ed Horley
[e-mail] | [phone]