Re: comment: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro-01.txt

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 itojun@iijlab.net wrote:
> overall
> 	"this problem has been fixed..." to state that there's IPv6 variant
> 	available for the document looks strange to me.

Well, it's good (IMHO) for one purpose, explicitly stating that the 
problem no longer exists.  That is, if you just say "RFC X defines Foo2, 
which is Foo for IPv6", it is not clear whether RFC X and Foo2 provide all 
the features the original Foo did.  Saying it fixes the problem is a bit 
awkward but OK.  However, I'm not sure if Phil actually analyzed whether 
the same functions are being provided..

That said, I think something like "RFC2080 defines RIPng, RIP for IPv6." 
is slightly better, editorial-wise.  

I could go either way, but I'd like to try to avoid a lot of (editorial)
extra work for our editors if it doesn't have an acceptable cost/benefit
ratio.

Other thoughts?

...

Responding to a few comments only which might possibly warrant more 
discussion.

> line 274 (3.1.1)
> 	why this document suggests updates to RFC1812 to include IPv6 routing
> 	requirement, while suggesting separate IPv6 variant for RFC1122?
> 	not sure which is the right way to go.

Yes, I agree with that.  I think it should say that router reqs for v6 
should be defined.

> line 303 (3.1.6)
> 	which document deprecates the use of literal IP address?  RFC2822 still
> 	has domain-literal syntax, i.e. itojun@[10.1.1.1].

Very good point.  I also thought it was done in 2822 but it seems it only 
removed certain older versions.  Something to bring up to the apps folks, 
but I think there's already a person looking into these.

> line 397 (3.2.1)
> 	i don't think there's enough specification for DHCPv6 options to
> 	replace bootp as a whole.

I don't know bootp in particular, but I'd bet DHCPv6 provides enough of 
options to provide for bootp functionality.  Do you have some particular 
options in mind?  DHCPv4 certainly has quite a bit more of them than 
DHCPv6, though.

> line 560 (3.3.8)
> 	I don't think there's applicability statement for OSPFv3 in RFC2740.

True.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings