Commenting as an individual (and as the culprit for
RFC 1888 and RFC 4048):
Pekka Savola wrote:
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to
consider the
following document:
- 'Internet Code Point Assignments '
<draft-gray-rfc1888bis-01.txt> as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the
iesg@xxxxxxxx or ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2005-09-07.
The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gray-rfc1888bis-01.txt
The title is inappropriately generic.
I agree. Suggest
Internet Code Point Assignments for NSAP Addresses
Given RFC 4048, is there sufficient evidence that this would be useful to the operational (or any other) community ?
My understanding is that the ATM world needs this.
(Being more explicit on this draft's relationship to RFC 1888 and 4048 would not hurt in general.)
Slightly agree, see below.
1. Introduction
...
The means RFC 1888 defined for encoding NSAP addresses in IPv6
address format, was heavily annotated with warnings and limitations
that apply should this encoding be used. Possibly as a result, these
encodings are not used and appear never to have been used in any IPv6
deployment. In addition, section 6 contains minor errors. As a result
of these various considerations, an Internet Draft [BC] has been
submitted recommending that RFC 1888 be made historical.
The last sentence, and the reference, is out of date. Suggest:
As a result
of these various considerations, RFC 1888 has been obsoleted and
declared Historic by RFC 4048 [ref RFC 4048].
2. IANA Considerations
...
Remaining decimal values '2' through '9999' SHOULD be assigned on
an IETF consensus basis, with IANA consent.
I don't understand "with IANA consent." Also SHOULD seems ambiguous.
Suggest:
Remaining decimal values '2' through '9999' MUST be assigned on
an IETF Consensus basis [ref RFC 2434].
but I wonder whether Expert Review wouldn't be sufficient? Do we
really need to trouble the whole IETF for this?
4. Security Considerations
Security issues are not specifically addressed in this document, as
the NSAP encoding of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses is compatible with the
corresponding security mechanisms of RFC 1825 [1825].
I'd prefer to be told that this document doesn't directly affect
the security of the Internet, if that is the case. Also, RFC 1825
is obsolete - the current document is RFC 2401.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf