Re: WG Last Call: three draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-*01 documents

[Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>]

Pekka Savola wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> This is a WG Last Call for comments on sending the following the next
> three "Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Standards"
> documents to the IESG for consideration as Informational RFCs:
> 
> Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
>   http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt

4.1  RFC 1771 A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4) 

   This RFC defines a protocol used for exchange of IPv4 routing 
   information and does not support IPv6.  A new EGP must be defined for 
   the exchange of IPv6 routing information. 

This and other references to BGP4 seem to ignore BGP4+ (RFC 2858) even though
it is listed!

5.1  RFC 1195 Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and dual 
    environments (IS-IS) 

   This document specifies a protocol for the exchange of IPv4 routing 
   information.  It is incompatible with IPv6.  There are substantial 
   work being done on a newer version of IS-IS that should include IPv6 
   routing. 

s/are/is/. Also is this up to date?

5.2  RFC 1370 Applicability Statement for OSPF 

   This document discusses a version of OSPF that is limited to IPv4.  
   It is expected that a similar document be assigned for when a version 
   of OSPF that supports IPv6 is established. 

s/be assigned/will be written/. Also is this up to date?

5.19   RFC 2338 Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP) 
...
   There are numerous other references to 32-bit IP addresses.  There 
   does not seem to be any reason that a new version of this protocol 
   could be straightforwardly be developed for IPv6. 

Does this say what it seems to say, or is there a missing "not"?

There are at least two places in the draft that need:

s/depreciated/deprecated/

All this results from a superficial survey of the draft, so I suspect
that there are other nits as well. This is not ready to ship.

> Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Security Area Standards
>   http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-sec-01.txt

Did not review.

> 
> Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Transport Area
> Standards
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-trans-01.txt

From a superficial review, this looks reasonably OK to me, but I have
not made a full review.

   Brian