[v6ops] Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6146-bis-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Jordi

The -13 addresses all my concerns. I will shortly clear my DISCUSS. Just in time for the 1400 UTC telechat 😉

Regards

-éric

From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, 6 August 2026 at 14:34
To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]>
Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6146-bis-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Eric,

I just published the new version.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6146-bis/13/

Quick responses:

- I used the [] for ICMP (and of course, introduced the different notation for UDP/TCP and ICMP).

- I re-verified all the SHOULD and MAY for interoperability according statement-iesg-statement-on-clarifying-the-use-of-bcp-14-key-words-01, and replaced them for lower case in each one that was relevant to the BCP-14 interpretation. That’s why it took a bit longer than I originally expected.

Hopefully I’ve not broken anything else now!

Thanks again once more!

Regards,
Jordi

@jordipalet

El 6 ago 2026, a las 13:28, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]> escribió:

Hello Jordi,

Let's try to close this discussion 😉

See below for EV2>

Regards

-éric

From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, 6 August 2026 at 11:31
To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]>
Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6146-bis-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Eric,

Again thanks a lot of the inputs.

See below, in-line, and if you can confirm I will publish v13 with also previous couple of emails corrections.

In any case I will make sure to publish v13 in a couple of hours or so.

Regards,
Jordi

@jordipalet

El 6 ago 2026, a las 11:08, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]> escribió:

Hello Jordi

Thanks for the -12 revision as it addresses most of my DISCUSS and COMMENT issues. We are obviously converging (and on this topic, this is not a surprise 😉 ).

Below, I have elided all the points addressed by -12 or by your reply. Remaining issues are commented by EV>

Regards

-éric

From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, 4 August 2026 at 19:29
To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]>
Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6146-bis-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Eric,

Tks a lot for all the inputs!


....%<......%<.............

El 4 ago 2026, a las 13:37, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]> escribió:

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6146-bis-11: Discuss


....%<......%<.............

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


# Éric Vyncke INT AD comments for draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6146-bis-11
CC @evyncke

## DISCUSS (blocking)

....%<......%<.............

### Section 3.2

Do not use the () notation for ICMP as in `(X',Y',i1) <--> (T,Z,i2)` as it is
incorrect per section 3 `IPv6 prefixes of length n are indicated by "P::/n";
mappings are indicated as "(X,x) <--> (Y',y)"`

Either I’m confused here or it is correct. ICMP Query sessions are a mapping between 3-tuples, we need to use the IPv6 and IPv4 source and destination address, as well as ICMP identifiers (instead of port numbers). May be the problem is the example in section 3 is good for the BIB, not for the session table, but reading the paragraph after (X',Y',i1) <--> (T,Z,i2) is clear enought? Also clear if you follow after section 3.5.3.

EV> it is because the section 3 puts 2 values between parenthesis and here in section 3.2 (now 4.2) there are 3 values between parenthesis. You may introduce curled or squared brackets for the 3-values expression.


Ok, so you mean this for example:


[X',Y’,i1] <--> [T,Z,i2]

EV2>  for example, but of course you need to introduce the notation in section 3 for a 3-value square brackets

....%<......%<.............

### Section 3.5.1.1

The SHOULD is missing the required guidance in `The stateful NAT64 translator
SHOULD send an ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable error message with Code 3
(Address Unreachable).`.

You mean both sentences aren’t properly linked? What about:

If it is not possible to allocate an appropriate IPv4 transport address or create a BIB entry, then the packet is discarded. In this case, the stateful NAT64 translator SHOULD send an ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable error message with Code 3 (Address Unreachable).

EV> the issue is still there:
EV> either the SHOULD is for interoperability, then the text must explain what are the consequences of not doing the action (to guide the implementers)
EV> or the SHOULD is not for interoperability, then it should be in lower case

I think it makes sense to go for lower case as in previous similar discuss, so it will become:


   If it is not possible to allocate an appropriate IPv4 transport
   address or create a BIB entry, then the packet is discarded.  In this
   case, the stateful NAT64 translator should send an ICMPv6 Destination
   Unreachable error message with Code 3 (Address Unreachable).


EV2> up to you to check whether the SHOULD is for interoperability or not

### Sections 3.5.1.1 and 3.5.2.3

A lot of "SHOULD" in these sections without the required guidance, which would
be very useful on this topic.

I’m not sure to understand here what do you mean, as those come from RFC4787 requirements section 12.

EV> even if RFC 4787 is incorrect, this is not a reason for not doing the right thing in the rfc6146bis document.
EV> I.e., remove all *ambiguities* for the readers/implementers by using either a lowercase "should" (when
EV> not important for interoperability) or explaining when or what are the consequences of bypassing
EV> the "SHOULD"

....%<......%<.............


Now I got it. I’ve re-read both sections and it is clear to me that lower casing both the should and may, is perfectly find and not creating any interoperability issues.

EV2> understood

...%<........%<...........


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