[v6ops] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6-xlat-prefix-01: (with DISCUSS)

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6-xlat-prefix-01: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6-xlat-prefix/



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

* Section 4.2.

I found the explanation to be useful but the prefix that was not selected seems
to be wrong (a prefix with non-zero bits past the prefix length does not really
make sense). The prefix that is adjacent to 64:ff9b::/96 is actually
64:ff9a:ffff::/48 and not 64:ff9a:ffff:ffff::/48 as described in the document.
This means that most of the text that follows is incorrect. i.e. The range will
be 64:ff9a:ffff:: - 64:ff9b::ffff:ffff and not 64:ff9a:ffff:ffff:: -
64:ff9b::ffff:ffff

P.S.: I thought hard about whether this should be a DISCUSS or a COMMENT but I
decided to go with a DISCUSS because I think it really needs to be fixed