Subject: IPv6 w.g. Last Call on "Requirements for IPv6 prefix delegation"

From: Bob Hinden & Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 10:14:23 -0700

This is a short IPv6 working group last call for comments on advancing the 
following document as an Informational RFC:

	Title		: Requirements for IPv6 prefix delegation
	Author(s)	: S. Miyakawa, R Droms
	Filename	: draft-ietf-ipv6-prefix-delegation-requirement-02.txt
	Pages		: 6
	Date		: 2003-7-1

A two week working group last call was completed on March 17, 2003 on the 
-01 version of the document.  This version resolves issues raised during 
that working group last call.

Please send substantive comments to the ipng mailing list, and minor 
editorial comments to the authors.  This last call period will end on 14 
July 2003.

Bob Hinden / Margaret Wasserman

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 15:32:36 +0300 (EEST)

> editorial comments to the authors.  This last call period will end on 14 

The document addresses the concerns raised previously, thanks.

A few small issues I came across during the re-read are below; editing 
these and sending the document off to the IESG (unless others have issues) 
should be rather straightforward.

3.2 Use of Delegated Prefixes in Customer Network

   The prefix delegation mechanism must not prohibit or inhibit the
   assignment of longer prefixes, created from the delegated prefixes,
   to links within the customer network.  It is not a requirement that
   the prefix delegation mechanism provide for the reporting of prefix
   delegation within the customer network back to the ISP.

==> When I read the second sentence ("It is not.."), I got confused, as 
the first sentence doesn't seem to imply any reporting back to the ISP.

Remove or reword slightly e.g. to:

Prefix delegation within the customer network should not be needed to be
reported back to the ISP.

   that cusomters will be assigned a /48 IPv6 unicast address prefix

==> s/cusomters/customers/

   An intruder requesting router may be able to mount a denial of
   service attack by repeated requests for delegated prefixes that
   exhaust the delegating router's available prefixes.

==> by "intruder requesting router" you're maybe referring to the CPE (as 
it would exhaust the delegating router's resources)?  Please reword 
slightly for clarity.

Thanks.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings