[v6ops] Comments on draft-ietf-v6ops-icp-guidance-04

[SM <[e-mail]>]

Hi Brian, Sheng,

I read draft-ietf-v6ops-icp-guidance-04.  Here's a few 
comments.  Please consider them as editorial or nits.

In Section 2:

   "In determining the urgency of this strategy, it should be noted that
    the central IPv4 registry (IANA) ran out of spare blocks of IPv4
    addresses in February 2011 and the various regional registries are
    expected to exhaust their reserves over the next one to two years."

APNIC and RIPE are in run-out mode.  It's unlikely that two of the 
regional registries will run out in a year or two.

I like the "just in time" advice (Section 3).  Training is 
ineffective if people do not have the means to put what they learned 
immediately into practice.

In Section 8.2:

   "One important recommendation here is that all applications should use
    domain names, which are IP-version-independent, rather than IP
    addresses."

This recommendation could be about content instead of 
applications.  Web pages with content such as
"http\x3a\x2f\x2f131.253.14.66\x2fbvsandbox.aspx" can be avoided.  It 
looks like you have this covered under "possible complexities".

   "A specific issue for HTTP-based services is that IP address-based
    cookie authentication schemes will need to deal with dual-stack
    clients."

I don't see the following being covered in the recommendations.

  Set-Cookie: domain=131.253.14.66; [edited header]

In Section 9:

   'At the time of this writing, this solution seems to be passing out
    of use, being replaced by "DNS blacklisting" of customer sites known
    to have problems with IPv6 connectivity.'

Given the past discussions about "whitelisting" (see RFC 5782) I'll 
highlight this and avoid the rehash.

Regards,
-sm