Gen-art telechat review: draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-06.txt

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
< http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-05.txt
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: April 1, 2013
IETF LC End Date: April 10, 2013
IESG Telechat date: May 16, 2013

Summary: Ready with nits (that border on minor issues)

This update improved the readability significantly, and addressed my major concern about being able to build a list of the gaps. Thank you.

There are a few issues from my last call review that are still not addressed. I have left the classification of minor issue vs nits the same as the original review to make referring to the earlier review easier, but please consider all of these Nits. The IESG will need to decide whether to escalate them.

I've trimmed away the points that were addressed.

On 4/1/13 3:46 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
----------------------
Minor issues:

The document currently references draft-chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout several times. That document is long expired (2006). It would be better to simply restate what is important from that document here and reference it only once in the acknowlegements
rather than send the reader off to read it.
This version still references that long expired draft. There was also conversation on apps-discuss about making that reference normative. IMHO, this is not the right way to treat the RFC series, and strongly encourage moving the text that you want to reference into something that will
become an RFC.


Should section 8 belong to some other document? It looks like operational renumbering advice/considerations, but doesn't seem to be exploring renumbering gaps, except for the very short section 8.2 which says "we need a better mechanism" without much explanation.
Afaict, this wasn't addressed at all. In particular, "we need a better mechanism" is still all that
section 8.2 says.


Section 5.1, first bullet. The list below "the impact of ambiguous M/O flags" says things like "there is no standard" and "it is unspecified". I think you are trying to say that there is ambiguity in what's written, not that nothing's written. This entire list would benefit from
being recast in terms of what needs to be done (what are the gaps?).
This text remains unmodified.

----------------------
Nits/editorial comments:

There are a few sentences ending with "etc." in the document. Please consider deleting the
word from the list - it doesn't help each sentence make its point.
There were some changes, but mostly these still exist. I'll leave pressing this point further to the RFC Editor.


Seciton 7.1: The first bullet does not parse. If I guess its meaning correctly (that it would be benificial to tell hosts that local DNS has been updated and they may want to make fresh queries), please be careful with the wording. The
hosts don't know which names are likely to resolve locally.
This text remained unchanged, and when coming back to the document for a re-review (which is somewhat like coming back to an RFC you've read before just for reference), it's even harder to understand what it's trying to say than it was when reading the document
linearly.

I think you are trying to say
"A notification mechanism may be needed to indicate _to_ hosts that a renumbering event has _changed how local recursive DNS servers will respond_. That mechanism may also need to indicate that such a change will happen at a specific time in the future."


Section 7.1, third bullet - This isn't obviously about notification. Why is it
in this section? What's the gap this is trying to identify?
This text was unchanged.

Section 9.4 - what is it about these that make them gaps, much less unsolvable gaps.
Is this discussion in the wrong section of the document?
This is now section 10.3 and is mostly unchanged. It's still not clear why this discussion is in the "unsolvable gaps" section.





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]