Subject: Re: IPv6 WG Last Call:draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4-01.txt

From: Mohsen Souissi <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 16:29:22 +0100

Bob,

I hope it is not too late to send comments. I don't know whether today
 (8 March) is included or not in the LC period.

I have just reread the draft and I have 3 comments. Comments #1 and #3
are clearly not substantive.  Comment #2 is may be seen as substantive
and that's why I've Cc'ed the list.

- I think that the text explaining the exception with unicast
 addresses beginning with binary 000 at section 2.5.4 ("Global Unicast
 Addresses") should be moved to section 2.5.1 ("Interface Identifier")
 where the author talks about the exception but without giving an
 explanation. It may be frustrating for the reader to have to wait
 until reaching section 2.5.4 in order to learn about the rationale of
 that exeption...

- In section 2.7 ("Multicast Addresses"): 

"link-local and site-local multicast scopes span the same topological
 regions as the corresponding unicast scopes."
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

==> Maybe it should be stated clearly whether we may or may not keep
 using "site-local" terminology in the multicast context while that
 terminology has been deprecated in the unicast context...

- Section 2.8: "A Node's Required Addresses"
                ^
==> Maybe rather saying "Node's Required Addresses" beacuse
   "addresses" is plural ?

Regards,

Mohsen.

 On 22 Feb, Brian Haberman wrote:
 | All,
 |      This starts a 2-week IPv6 WG Last Call on advancing:
 | 
 | 	Title		: IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture
 | 	Author(s)	: R. Hinden, S. Deering
 | 	Filename	: draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4-01.txt
 | 	Pages	: 25
 | 	Date		: 2005-2-18
 | 
 | as a Draft Standard.  Substantive comments should be directed to
 | the mailing list.  Editorial comments can be sent to the document
 | editor.  This Last Call will end on March 8, 2005.
 | 
 | Regards,
 | Bob & Brian
 | IPv6 WG co-chairs

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 09:25:22 -0800

Mohsen,

>  (8 March) is included or not in the LC period.

No, you made it in time :-)

>  until reaching section 2.5.4 in order to learn about the rationale of

I will take a look at the text and see if I can clarify.

>  regions as the corresponding unicast scopes."

I think the solution is to remove the sentence as multicast scoping is 
better described in the scoped addressing architecture.  I will add this to 
an issue slide for today's meeting.

>==> Maybe rather saying "Node's Required Addresses" beacuse

I think the current text is OK, but will think about it.

Thanks,
Bob

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 00:03:39 +0000

>  terminology has been deprecated in the unicast context...

This also crops up in Appendix B in the change section at the end - it
says "Deprecated the site-local" where really "unicast" should be inserted.
Appendix B will need a bullet point for the deprecation of compatibles.

In 2.5.5. the reference to TRAN should obviously be removed, since TRAN
no longer includes compatibles.  In terms of the wording to deprecate
compatibles in the first part of 2.5.5 the wording of 2.5.7 (for the
deprecation of site locals) seems appropriate (bearing in mind Alain's
comments today).  

It seems today we agreed to alter the first sentence of 2.5.7 to no
er refer to [SLDEP] to remove the dependancy.  Since we have no
document describing the deprecation of compatibles, this seems OK?

At what point will we modify addr-arch to include the ULAs?  It may
be too early to include ULAs in 2.5.7, unles the 'probabilistic' unique
draft discussed today is finalised very soo?  A further update will
be required for the centrally assigned ULAs?

The bit in 2.7 that says
 	"link-local and site-local multicast scopes span the same
             topological regions as the corresponding unicast scopes."
might be reworded.

Also in 2.7 "address whose scop" should be "scope" (twice).

Tim

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 08:44:48 -0800

Tim,

>says "Deprecated the site-local" where really "unicast" should be inserted.

Agreed.

>Appendix B will need a bullet point for the deprecation of compatibles.

See later comment about compatibles.

>document describing the deprecation of compatibles, this seems OK?

I think it is useful to keep the reference to SLDEP because it provides an 
explanation on why Site-local were deprecated.  As we discussed at the IPv6 
session yesterday, it should be fine to keep the reference but make it 
informational.  This document does not depend on it.

I will send out proposed text about deprecation of IPv4 compatible 
addresses to the list in a separate email (maybe not today).  I think it 
will remove the reference to TRAN.  The decision to deprecate Ipv6 
compatible addresses made at yesterdays IPv6 session will, of course, need 
to be confirmed on the mailing list.

>be required for the centrally assigned ULAs?

Good question.  I don't think it is necessary to add ULAs to the Address 
Architecture because they don't require any special handling (in the way 
site-local did).  They are another flavor of unicast addresses that don't 
need any special handling that would have to be called out in Section 2.4.

>              topological regions as the corresponding unicast scopes."

I looked at the text and propose changing the text about multicast scopes to:

    ......

    link-local multicast scope spans the same
    topological region as the corresponding unicast scope.

    admin-local scope is the smallest scope that must be
    administratively configured, i.e., not automatically
    derived from physical connectivity or other, non-
    multicast-related configuration.

    site-local scope is intended to span a single site.

    ......

This is slightly different than was proposed at yesterday's w.g. session, 
but I think it is clearer and correct.

>Also in 2.7 "address whose scop" should be "scope" (twice).

The name of the field in the multicast address is "scop".  The text you 
cite says "addresses whose scop field" where field should make it clear 
that it is refering to the field.  Would it help if scop was put in quotes 
(e.g., "scop")?  Other suggestions?

Thanks,
Bob