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

[Nathan Ward <v6ops@daork.net>]

On 20/03/2009, at 11:23 AM, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:

> 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).

Yup - this was written fast before the deadline so is very short on  
references.

> - 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)

I have had this comment from Brian Carpenter as well, so will make  
this change.

> - 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.


Sounds good.

Cheers for your comments!

--
Nathan Ward