Re: Evaluation: draft-ietf-mobileip-reg-revok - Registration Revo cation in Mobile IPv4 to Proposed Standard

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>]

In message <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15501483EF2@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.c
om>, "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" writes:
>>                     Yes    No-Objection  Discuss *  Abstain  
>> Bert Wijnen         [   ]     [ X ]       [   ]      [   ]
>
>However, I do see (non-compliance with ID-NITS):
>
>- citation in abstract
>
>- Page 11:
>
>           e.g. revoke: 10.1.1.128, prefixLen: 25 means all mobile nodes
>           whose addresses fall within the range 10.1.1.128 - 10.1.1.254
>           and revoke: 10.1.1.129, prefixLen: 25 has the same meaning,
>           but revoke: 10.1.1.0, prefixLen:25 means all mobile nodes 
>           whose addresses fall within the range 10.1.1.0 - 10.1.1.127.
>
>
>           (e.g. revoke: 10.1.1.240, prefixLen: 28).
>
>   and there is more of that on following page(s)
>
>   ID-NITS says
>     Addresses used in examples should prefer use of fully qualified
>     domain names to literal IP addresses, and prefer use of example
>     fqdn's such as foo.example.com to real-world fqdn's
>     See RFC 2606 for example domain names that can be used
>     There is also a range of IP addresses set aside for this purpose.
>     These are 192.0.2.0/24 (see RFC 3330). Private addressess that
>     would be used in the real world should be avoided in examples. 


But the document is talking about IP addresses and prefixes here; I 
don't think FQDNs would make any sense.



		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)