Re: [v6ops] Opsdir early review of draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6-xlat-prefix-00

Joe Clarke <jclarke@cisco.com> Thu, 11 May 2017 17:18 UTC

Return-Path: <jclarke@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9DA013144E; Thu, 11 May 2017 10:18:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LBv4dVwwiXnk; Thu, 11 May 2017 10:18:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44015129B84; Thu, 11 May 2017 10:13:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1747; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1494522793; x=1495732393; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Wh1VPyjsGml3rxZ8GRBQQKBqkw2eioriHRPujgzWpZ8=; b=Bi9VEd8IkJr56HYGN04zwhujZJm/zyJ92cGP2hTvw2gU6sy36VucMKX3 /7QaJesuxJeW1yLWVfSPIUF+Q8e7Be6+2Zq3zWq1KwvfnaqdhlljtPVDy gkrkT2YC7ihG0CF88ffgdp6ujTB9EHE6q7+clT0wbBoH4AtDjacNv6QqO s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DaAgBXmxRZ/5NdJa1dGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBg1WFV5tRIXKVAoIPhiQChQ1AFwECAQEBAQEBAWsohRUBAQEBAgEjDwFGEAsYAgImAgJXBg0IAQGKFgixUYImincBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBASGBC4VUgV4rC4IxNId1gmABBJZvhxuTG4sChmmUQyABNoEKTyEVh1ckiRIBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,325,1491264000"; d="scan'208";a="241986267"
Received: from rcdn-core-11.cisco.com ([173.37.93.147]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 11 May 2017 17:13:12 +0000
Received: from [10.82.250.3] (rtp-vpn6-513.cisco.com [10.82.250.3]) by rcdn-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v4BHDABw017783; Thu, 11 May 2017 17:13:12 GMT
To: Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>
Cc: ops-dir@ietf.org, v6ops@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6-xlat-prefix.all@ietf.org
References: <149373185172.9923.9255526962045750289@ietfa.amsl.com> <20170511131642.1f408832@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com>
From: Joe Clarke <jclarke@cisco.com>
Organization: Cisco
Message-ID: <9d92e7bd-5b55-fb1f-5572-b69b6507ee7c@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 13:13:10 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170511131642.1f408832@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/J6cQvmBqnIneeiBxSonmHJOyu8k>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Opsdir early review of draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6-xlat-prefix-00
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
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: Thu, 11 May 2017 17:18:17 -0000

On 5/11/17 07:16, Tore Anderson wrote:
> Actually I'm trying to not imply anywhere that 64:ff9b:1::/48 is a/the
> «WKP» (although the previous point you brought up was a failure in that
> regard). The WKP is defined to be exactly 64:ff9b::/96 by RFC6052, and
> I do not want to cause any ambiguity here.
> 
> I rewrote the paragraph in question as follows:
> 
>       Note that 64:ff9b:1::/48 (or any more-specific prefix) is distinct from
>       the WKP 64:ff9b::/96. Therefore, the restrictions on the use of the WKP
>       described in Section 3.1 of <xref target="RFC6052"/> do not apply to the
>       use of 64:ff9b:1::/48.
> 
> Is that better?

Yes, I think that text plus the previous clarification is good.

> 
>> In Section 3, you state:
>>
>> Since the WKP 64:ff9b::/96 was reserved by [RFC6052], several new
>> IPv4/IPv6 translation mechanisms have been defined by the IETF
>>
>> I think it would be useful to mention some of these new translation
>> mechanisms as non-normative references, and if need be, show an
>> example of interoperability.
> 
> How about: «Since the WKP 64:ff9b::/96 was reserved by [RFC6052],
> several new IPv4/IPv6 translation mechanisms have been defined by the
> IETF, such as [RFC6146] and [RFC7915].» ?
> 
> These two mechanisms do not interoperate at all, so they need different
> translation prefixes if they're to be deployed in the same network.

That works.

> 
>> NITS:
>>
>> In your Abstract, you mention RFC6890, but this does not appear to be
>> an xref to it, and it should be.
> 
> As mentioned by others, the idnits tool complains about xrefs in the
> abstract. In any case I've just dropped the Updates on 6890 completely.

Thanks.

Joe