Subject: [v6ops] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-eam-02: (with COMMENT)

From: "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 01:31:28 -0700

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-eam-02: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-eam/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

>From Ron Bonica's OPS DIR review:
The Nit Checker says:

== There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC5735-compliant IPv4
addresses
     in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should be
changed.

  == There are 3 instances of lines with non-RFC3849-compliant IPv6
addresses
     in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should be
changed.

I understand why you had to break the rule for 0/0. But could the IPv6
addresses have been taken from documentation space?

---

From: Tore Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 11:25:12 +0200

* Benoit Claise

> addresses have been taken from documentation space?

Hi Benoit,

Idnits doesn't show this unless you run it in verbose mode, but
non-RFC5735/3849 addresses used present in the document are from:

- 64:ff9b::/96 (the well-known prefix used for IPv4-embedded IPv6
  addresses, defined in RFC6052)
- 192.0.0.0/29 (the well-known prefix used for local unrouted IPv4
  interfaces that are part of a IPv6 transition solution, defined in
  RFC7335)

The prefixes are used as mandated by RFC6052/RFC7335, and those
documents are referenced. In my opinion, their use makes for a better
document than the use of the generic documentation prefixes, because it
their use are then immediately obvious.

By replacing these prefixes with RFC5735/3849 ones, some statements
will immediately become incorrect. Consider for example if the current
statement:

«[...] even if the well-known prefix 64:ff9b::/96 is used [...]»

would be replaced with:

«[...] even if the well-known prefix 2001:db8::/96 is used [...]»

This new statement would IMHO just cause confusion, because
2001:db8::/96 is simply *not* the RFC6052 well-known prefix.

So I would strongly prefer to have the document use RFC6052/RFC7335
prefixes where this is appropriate, but will of course yield if the
consensus says otherwise.

Tore

---

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 09:31:40 +0000

> On Oct 14, 2015, at 3:25 AM, Tore Anderson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

My recollection is that I said that in the shepherd's write-up. Did I miss that?

I certainly think that if we are discussing a mandated prefix, we should say what prefix we're talking about, and it's not the documentation prefix.

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 11:43:13 +0200

> My recollection is that I said that in the shepherd's write-up. Did I miss that?
No, I simply overlooked it.
Thanks Fred and Tore. We're good.

Regards, Benoit