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

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

Hi,

On Fri, 5 Sep 2003, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 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!

True, but the comments you quote are all from sections 3-6, which should 
(according to the methodology), be examined in the "vacuum", not looking 
forward to documents which fix the issues.  There has been some slippage 
from this though.

Are there serious objections to this original approach?  Note that at 
least half a dozen people who have reviewed the document have complained 
(to a smaller or greater extent) about it.

This certainly needs some rewording, though.
 
> 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?

Close, perhaps something like:

    This document specifies a protocol for the exchange of IPv4 routing 
    information.  Extensions are being specified to also handle IPv6.

[and elaborate in section 7]

> 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?

Pretty close, but I'd say "may be written".  I'm not sure if it's really 
worth the bits..

> 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"?

The sentence is too difficult to understand (IMHO) anyway, so probably 
best reword it to something like:

    There are numerous other references to 32-bit IP addresses.  The 
    protocol cannot be extended to handle IPv6.  Instead, a new 
    version protocol is being specified to work with IPv6. 
 
> There are at least two places in the draft that need:
> 
> s/depreciated/deprecated/

Yep.
 
> 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.

Agreed.

Thanks,

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