[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: editorial comments on draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-06



I don't agree. Lower case 'should' in an informational
RFC is not normative; it's an opinion. Using RFC 2119
language would be a problem, but we don't.

    Brian

On 2007-03-13 00:15, james woodyatt wrote:
gentlemen--

My attention was recently drawn to [draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-06], and I have found what I think are some easily corrected editorial problems, which I hope you will consider making when the AUTH48 event happens.
The document is Informational, not Best Current Practice, so I'm 
concerned about the possibility that excerpts which appear to make 
recommendations for implementers could be quoted out of context 
inappropriately.  I scanned the text for the word "should" and came up 
with a few places where that seems to be an easily corrected error.
In section 4.1: "A basic IPv6 router should have a default configuration 
to advertise inside the site a locally generated random ULA prefix, 
independently from the state of any external connectivity."  Also: "With 
external connectivity the simple gateway should use DHCP-PD to acquire a 
routing prefix from the service provider for use when connecting to the 
global Internet."  Recommend replacing "should" with "may" in both cases 
here.
In section 4.2: "To implement simple security for IPv6 in, for example a 
DSL or Cable Modem connected home network, the broadband gateway/router 
should be equipped with stateful firewall capabilities.  These should 
provide a default configuration where incoming traffic is limited 
[...]."  Also, "There should also be an easy interface which allows 
users to create inbound 'pinholes' [...]."  Recommend replacing "should" 
with "may" in all three of these cases.
Also in section 4.2: "Administrators and the designers of configuration 
interfaces for simple IPv6 firewalls need to provide a means of 
documenting the security caveats [...]" Recommend inserting "may" before 
the word "need" in this sentence.
In section 4.4: "In any case the approach should be limited to uses with 
substantially fewer than the maximum number of routes that the IGP can 
support [...]" and "Hosts should also listen to the IGP for duplicate 
use [...]" Recommend replacing "should" with "may" here.
Thank you for your time and attention.


--james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
member of technical staff
apple computer, inc.