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

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 11:51:57AM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Hi Benjamin,
> 
> Responses below, in-line.
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
>  
>  
> 
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>
> Fecha: jueves, 10 de enero de 2019, 23:36
> Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]>
> CC: The IESG <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
> Asunto: Re: [v6ops] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
>     On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 05:43:32PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>     > 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.
>     
>     Er, do you require both GUI and CLI, or not?  The current text only
>     requires at least one.  (But yes, I agree it's common to support both
>     already, so this is not likely to be a burdensome requirement.)
>  
> Yes, the idea is "GUI and CLI" or "GUI and API" or all them. I was reading that correctly, but may be (once more) is a problem between Spanish-English ...
> 
> What about:
> "The IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST have a GUI and either a CLI or API (or both) to manually enable/disable each of the supported transition mechanisms."

That says what you want, yes.

>     >     
>     >     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.
>     
>     Well, another alternative is (as Ben suggests) to just not include this
>     sentence at all.  Which would of course also address my point here :)
> 
> We have this text for every transition mechanism. The transition mechanisms have "2/3" pieces. One is the transition mechanism itself, another one is what is needed in the operator network, and then what is needed in the CE. I think for clarity, even if looks like a repetition, we decided to keep using the same wording on this that was used in RFC7084.
> 
> For example, DS-Lite is the mechanism, AFTR is the operator part, B4 is the CE part. If you look at the text (section 3.2.2), we are referring first to the overall DS-Lite, then we say that the CE must implement the B4 following what is said about that in the RFC.
> 
> I still believe is good to keep that way.

Well, this is a non-blocking comment, so I can't get in your way.

-Benjamin