Subject: [renum] AD review draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-05

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 21:01:48 -0800

Folks,

I took a look at

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-05

overall I think it's fairly well put-together document.

A couple things,

While it's certainly readable, a proofreader would probably tighten up 
the language a bit. There are several sentences in in 5.2 for example 
that would benefit from the addition of a preposition in strategic 
locations.

While multihoming is mentioned several times, the necessity of engaging 
in source routing or some other mechanism, e.g. logical VRFs per PA 
prefix in order to preclude black-holing of traffic while multihoming or 
while both prefixes are valid is not as far as I can tell and that seems 
to be a missing piece of the router renumbering gap analysis.

I see some discussion on the list that post-dates the latest revision 
titled Late gap in the gap analysis. Has that been resolved to the 
satisfaction of the WG?

Thanks
Joel

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 08:08:32 +0000

Hi Joel,

Thanks for the review.

> that would benefit from the addition of a preposition in strategic

Yes, or we could do that after IETF Last Call, as you prefer.

The concrete suggestion was s/may/will/ in the following:

>    7.3. Renumbering Monitoring
>    While treating renumbering as a network event, mechanisms to monitor
>    the renumbering process may be needed.

    Brian

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 00:24:08 -0800

Got it, thanks.

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:06:21 -0800

Given that I don't have control yet, and we're 12 days from the meeting 
I'll initiate IETF LC on this after the coming meeting.

thanks
joel

On 2/22/13 12:24 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> renum mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/renum
>