Subject: Review of draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-10.txt

From: William Allen Simpson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 10:08:55 -0500

Thank you for informing me of the re-write.  A few obvious editorial
corrections:

    EMail: [email-masked]
           [email-masked]

The former machine hasn't existed since circa 1994, and the latter since
circa 1998.  Easy Googling has given reviewers one of my half dozen
active emails (and notified me of this draft).  I've recently retired
[email-masked] that was on most recent RFCs, as that company
concluded bankruptcy some time ago.

Please replace with my more current email above!  (Hopefully, Gmail will
be useful for the next Internet Lifetime.)

The Introduction has a list of acknowledgments for reviewers.  They
aren't really introductory.  In the past, I've always included them in a
separate ACKNOWLEDGMENTS section, following more usual academic practice.
That also permits more explicit indication of which individuals proposed
which (mis-)features.

Please replace the rampant misuse of "e.g." and "i.e." with the more
appropriate "for example," "such as," "that is," "specifically," or in
many parentheticals simply eliminate it entirely!

Also, it would be better to follow the RFC writing practices that I've
developed for such things as describing state machines, later cited as
exemplary in the Guide for Internet Standards Writers (RFC 2360).  I'd
hoped that a draft derived from my earlier work would continue the clean
style and form, even as it deviates from the substance.

And speaking of substance, I'm not convinced this draft is ready for
prime time.  Far too much continues to be relegated to "further study".
For example, multi-homed hosts are fairly common in operational practice,
and my original 1992-1993 work included them.

After 15 years, greater experience ought to clarify, rather than muddy
the waters.  This should never have made it to Draft Standard.

Moreover, as I've stated before, I'm deeply disappointed that the substance
has departed from my original vision: virtually no configuration for hosts
or routers, other than identifiers and secrets necessary for security.
Although there have been modest improvements in this recent draft, the
elimination of explicit security support has retreated ever farther from
the goal.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf