Re: [v6ops] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]>]

Hi Benjamin,

Thanks again for your detailed review.

I'm already working in a draft for a new version including all the nits that you mention (some already were corrected in -13).

Some clarifications to some of your comments.
 
    Section 3.2
    
       TRANS-2:  The IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST have a GUI, CLI and/or
                 API option to manually enable/disable each of the supported
                 transition mechanisms.
    
    Do we really need to pick and name interfaces, or can we just say "MUST
    have a configuration interface"?

Yes, the point here is to make sure that at least there is a GUI and CLI (or API). The idea is that the customer is able to buy a CE and later on use it in a different ISP. So, having both facilitate that, even in the case of a manual configuration required by the user. Normally DHCP-based mechanisms should do it, and also is currently very common that both are already supported, so not a big issue.

       CONFIG-1:  Request the relevant configuration options for each
                  supported transition mechanisms, which MUST remain
                  disabled at this step.
    
    This seems like it could make for really bad UX in some cases, such as when
    a user is only given one class of configuration information from their ISP
    and is hopelessly confused by questions (about other mechanisms) that they
    don't have answers for.  Is the MUST requirement (not quoted) to follow
    this step really justified?

This is needed to allow the rest of the config/priority process. I believe you are misinterpreting as something done by the user in the GUI or something. While it may be possible, it not the case. It is all done by DHCP.

    
    Section 3.2.1
    
                                                     If 464XLAT is
       supported, it MUST be implemented according to [RFC6877].  [...]
    
    Do we want to consider adding "or a successor document"?

I think if we do that, we could need doing that for every RFC ... that's why we have documents updating previous ones, so I don't think so.
  
Regards,
Jordi




**********************************************
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.