Hi, Robert Thanks a lot for your continuous careful review. Please see replies inline. > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Sparks [mailto:rjsparks@xxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 12:33 AM > To: renum@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: gen-art@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Gen-art telechat review: draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-06.txt > > 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. [Bing] Maybe Brian's suggestion of putting some texts into an appendix is a good way. We'll discuss this problem when make the next time update. > > 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. [Bing] Sorry for leaving it out. Will do in next update. > > > > 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. [Bing] We made revision focusing on explaining "what are the gaps", but the texts change was omitted, will do in next update. > > ---------------------- > > 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. [Bing] A professional language/editorial check would be helpful. > > > > 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." [Bing] I think it's a better description. Will update, thanks much. > > > > > 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. [Bing] For example, if border routers enabled egress filtering based on the SIP, then the router need to know the renumbering events on some internal nodes. We'll make it clear in the next version. > > 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. [Bing] We considered the two points (ID/Locator overloading in transport layer & address caching in app layer ) are too fundamental that might not be proper to modify them just in terms of renumbering. Best regards, Bing