IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs-01.txt

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Mon, 05 February 2018 08:49 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 7C7A3129C6D for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Feb 2018 00:49:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 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_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 PrJ32pCoEab0 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Feb 2018 00:49:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1897F12AAB6 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Feb 2018 00:49:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id BC987B2; Mon, 5 Feb 2018 09:48:57 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1517820537; bh=6meJf11UF6ygS38A0mh/dMgp7YfjlZ2GuG9Lsk9q9l4=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Ol9UKTH6Qy9PWhwE0CsGyPnZAIT3liUQ6lV3cW3XrV3H0DIQNrW2jjwCt4wTnBlA/ AZJqyQ51w7OFyweRY0zCSmBQmYBvmbRN+hAbUsBV0qP4k3O0+VU/kCJ1jrEKh3W0nj E1EZeaHwQMGtuCT/58kbaSyvuPsfRrrRCFBrYxvY=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3D28B1; Mon, 5 Feb 2018 09:48:57 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2018 09:48:57 +0100
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: 7riw77@gmail.com
cc: v6ops@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <09b101d383fa$dd6fca30$984f5e90$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1802050930520.8884@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <151491899410.22628.14408666128226236605@ietfa.amsl.com> <09b101d383fa$dd6fca30$984f5e90$@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/T7EpAyDJiGNPwZzE3XOWEoIlZXM>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs-01.txt
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: Mon, 05 Feb 2018 08:49:03 -0000

On Tue, 2 Jan 2018, 7riw77@gmail.com wrote:

> - Should PVD be included?
> - Add a redirects section -- I don't remember what this was in reference to.
> - The suggestion for an appendix containing a plain list of the requirements.

I'm reading -01.

"The source address or other header fields (not common)"

Don't we want this to become more common? I do. We have RFCs talking about 
this and it's one way of solving the multihoming problem we're fairly 
actively discussing?

3.4

Typo: "ot police"

4.x.

sFlow and IPFIX is in wide use today. Don't we want to mention these at 
all?

5.3.

Typo: "to calcualte the"

"elucidation" is a word I had to look up. Is this commonly used in these 
kinds of documents?

5.4

Filter ICMP echo and reply by default??? I find this highly controversial 
and I do not agree with it.

6.

Typo: "only addressing wil"

Summary:

While I do not oppose to much in this document, it's a bit confusing what 
the document wants to be. It's currently informational, but contains a lot 
of RFC2119 language. I realise that RFC7084 is also informational, is this 
the kind of document we're after?

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email