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

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.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.
> 
Correct. But there are also IP addresses set aside for such use and
they are using other IP addresses.

(I personally can live with it though... I just noticed).

Bert