Re: Fwd: I-D Action:draft-nward-6to4-qualification-00.txt

[JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <Jinmei_Tatuya@isc.org>]

At Wed, 4 Mar 2009 00:36:00 +1300,
Nathan Ward <v6ops@daork.net> wrote:

> I have just submitted the following, comments appreciated! Please note  
> that it is very draft so I could get this in by the deadline and get  
> some discussion happening.

I've quickly read this draft.  It seems to me a reasonable and useful
proposal.  Here are some minor comments:

- I'd add a reference to RFC3068 with the first occurrence of
  "192.88.99.1".  (In section 2.2 of this version of draft).

- This 'MAY' looks awkward to me:

   SHALL cease.  Failure at this stage MAY mean an IPv4 firewall is in
   place.
   (Section 3.2, 4th para)

  because this doesn't actually define any implementation or
  operational behavior.  Can't this just be a lower-cased 'may'?
  (there's at least another awkward MAY in the draft)

- Section 5.1, 1st para

   A 24-bit IPv4 prefix, TBD1.  Only one IPv4 address is used, however
   24 bits is likely to be widely accepted in BGP peering sessions.

  I'd refer to RFC3068 since it provides more detailed rationale for
  the use of a /24 prefix.  It might even be better to say the
  rationale is the same (isn't it?) explicitly.

---
JINMEI, Tatuya
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.