RE: CNAP - very quick comment

[Ian Cooper <ian@the-coopers.org>]

--On Thursday, November 22, 2001 10:18 -0500 Abbie Barbir 
<abbieb@nortelnetworks.com> wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ian Cooper [mailto:ian@the-coopers.org]
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 12:00 PM
>> To: cdn@ops.ietf.org
>> Subject: CNAP - very quick comment
>>
>>
>> Apologies for the abruptness of this, but having just taken a
>> quick scan of
>> the draft the absolute first thing you're going to want to address is:
>>
>> 1) You only consider IPv4; no way will this fly far if that's
>> the case.
>>
> -- this should not be the case

Abbie, I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or suggesting that the draft 
says something else...

So far as I can see the draft only makes reference to IPv4 addresses.  I'm 
very certain that IESG would reject any new protocol that does not consider 
IPv6.  You might want to consider changing the notation to define "IPaddr" 
which can be either an IPv4 or IPv6 address... just a (not very well 
thought out) thought.

>
>> Also:
>>
>> 2) If the "cnas" in your ABNF is analagous to "content
>> network AS" you're
>> going to want to increase the size of the field.  (Since you
>> appear to have
>> ASCII you might want to consider going hex.)  [I guess it
>> might be suitable
>> to reserve private space that can be re-used, but I'd be
>> happier to see a
>> default that provided for more than 10,000 content networks.]
>>
>
> -- point well taken, i believe that there is an editor note on that.

Not too sure.  I can see some other comments in other sections of the draft 
that point at a lot of things that need to be defined, but nothing close to 
the ABNF that I was referring to.

And while this is obviously a very drafty draft I can sense possible 
confusion in saying it's a "text-based" protocol and yet also saying some 
field are a certain number of bits long.