Subject: Stewart Bryant's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-ug-06: (with COMMENT)

From: "Stewart Bryant" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 04:50:45 -0800

Stewart Bryant has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6man-ug-06: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-ug/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I have no objection to the publication of this draft.

Maybe it is just me, but it seems very strange to publish a Standards
Track document, the substance of which seems to be to tell the reader
that their *may* be a special meaning to two bits but they cannot  know
for certain that this is the case. I understand that for procedural
reasons the RFC needs to be published as ST, but perhaps the definitive
statements should be in the normative text and the informational text
should be an appendix.

I found the document very confusing to read, but given the expertise of
the authors, shepherd, AD and reviewers, I conclude that the text
correct, and the IPv6 address architecture is complex. Hopefully it is
not yet too complex for those that need to deploy and configure IPv6.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 08:23:19 +1300

Stewart,

On 18/12/2013 01:50, Stewart Bryant wrote:
...

Hmm... I think what we are telling the reader is that she must never rely
on those two bits having a special meaning, although there is pervasive
folklore that they *are* special.

> not yet too complex for those that need to deploy and configure IPv6.

I suppose the day might come for a major revision of RFC 4291, and of
all the IPv6-over-foo documents, but until then we are stuck with
a pretty complex situation I'm afraid.

   Brian