Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06

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

 



Brian,

Thanks for the review!

> On Jan 10, 2017, at 8:32 AM, Brian Haberman <brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Brian Haberman
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> 
> I just have a few comments/questions on this draft. Overall, it is in
> pretty good shape...
> 
> 1. Section 2.2.3 looks like a complete re-production of RFC 5952, but
> I don't see a reference to 5952. Is the intent to deprecate 5952 since
> its content is now contained within 4291bis?

I didn’t include a direct reference in the Section as incorporates the changes, but it is included in Appendix B describing the changes.

No current intent to deprecate RFC5952 as it updates RFC4291.  I don’t see very much value in deprecating (Historic?) the updating RFCs.

> 
> 2. Section 2.6.1 captures some information about reserved IPv6
> multicast addresses, but not all of them. I think it would be
> beneficial to point to the IPv6 Multicast Address Allocation registry
> maintained by IANA, much like the way Section 2.3 points to the IANA
> registries.

That makes sense.  Something like a new paragraph at the end of the section like:

Additional defined multicast address can be found in the IANA IPv6 Multicast Address Allocation registry [XXX]

XXX: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-multicast-addresses/ipv6-multicast-addresses.xhtml.

> 
> 3. Also in Section 2.6.1, the names of reserved addresses, like "All
> Nodes Addresses", were made all lowercase. Was that intentional? Given
> that IANA refers to them with capitalization, it would seem that we
> need to be consistent. So, I would either retain the capitalization in
> this document or ensure that Section 3 directs IANA to update the
> names in the registries.

It was capitalized in RFC4291.  It looks like the change was introduced in draft-hinden-6man-rfc4291bis-01.   I think may have been accidentally part of changing the text addresses to lower case as part of the RFC5952 update.  I agree it should be the way it was in RFC4291.  Will change.

Thanks,
Bob



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail


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