Hi Acee,
On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 8:53 PM Acee Lindem <acee.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Donald,
See some discussion inline regarding the IANA Considerations, RFC
7042, and RFC 7042BIS.
On Dec 12, 2023, at 6:21 PM, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello,
...
Minor Issues:
-------------
...
Section 11 IANA Considerations: This needs to direct IANA to update
references to RFC 5798. Suggest adding wording like: "IANA is
requested to update all IANA Registry references to [RFC5798] to be
references to [this document]." (Alternatively, instead of “all IANA
Registries” it could list the protocol number, 48-bit MAC address
block, IPv4 multicast address local network control block, and IPv6
link-local scope multicast addresses registries.)
I don’t mind adding this at the start but since this document
obsoletes RFC 5798, I believe it should still contain all the IANA
references in the “IANA Considerations”.
Sure, I said nothing about removing anything in Section 11. I just
suggested one sentence to be added where that sentence included
either the words "all IANA Registries" or a more specific list of
the relevant registries.
Nits:
-----
...
Section 1.1, Point 2: I believe it is good practice to include the
Errata fixed by a revision in the Informational References. As an
example, RFC 7176 fixes Errata 2869 in RFC 6326 which it obsoletes and
thus the Informational References for RFC 7176 include the following:
[Err2869] RFC Errata, Errata ID 2869, RFC 6326,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org>
I don’t agree that listing the Errata on an obsoleted draft is a
good practice. I’m not going to do this.
Then we diagree. The Errata are a reference for the statement in
rfc5798bis that Errata are fixed and I would not suggest the
reference if there were not such a statement in the document. But it's
not that important.
...
Section 8.3.1 Potential Forwarding Loop: There is a word missing in
the final one-sentence paragraph. Suggest "…Routers to these
forwarding…" -> "…Routers avoid to these forwarding…".
I put the missing word in the wrong place above, It should have been
"…Routers to avoid these forwarding…"
Section 11 IANA Considerations: The reference to [RFC7042] should be
replaced by a reference to the rfc7042bis draft.
RFC 7042 is a normative reference currently. If I were to update the
reference, I’d want to make it informative as not to gate this draft
just based on an IANA registry name update. I believe it was you who
suggested adding this reference in the first place. Can you suggest
updated text if I update the reference?
I don't see why any gating should occur since rfc7042bis seems to be
ahead of rfc5798bis in the process. I suggest you just put in a
reference to [RFC7042] in Section 7.3 where I had suggested a
reference to rfc7042bis and ignore my suggestion above re Section
11. If I am correct, as rfc5798bis proceeds through the process, at
AUTH-48 or before, IANA or some AD will point out to you that RFC 7042
has been / is being obsoleted and ask about updating the reference
to be to the RFC-to-be that the rfc7042bis draft turns into. If this
happens, I request that you accept this change.
