Subject: IESG comments on draft-ietf-ipv6-scoping-arch-01.txt

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 17:12:09 +0900

FYI, attached below are comments on
draft-ietf-ipv6-scoping-arch-01.txt from the IESG.  I'm going to
propose resolutions in separate messages, copying to each reviewer.

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					[email-masked]

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
To: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Cc: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>, Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 06:38:34 -0400

Hi Jinmei,

I think that you are the current editor of 
draft-ietf-ipv6-scoping-arch-01.txt?  If not, please let me know who 
is editing this document.

I have attached a list of comments from IESG review of this document. 
The only blocking comments is Steve Bellovin's but the other comments 
should be considered, as well.  Also, the document does not have a 
table of contents, which is required for any document this long.

Please update the document to address these issues and let me know 
when a new version is available.

Thanks,
Margaret

Steve Bellovin:
Discuss:
[2004-07-06] The Security Considerations section should note that the 
ambiguity of addresses means that unqualified source IP addresses 
cannot safely be used in security contexts such as ACLs or IKE 
negotiation.

Comment:
[2004-07-06] The discussion of convex routing in Section 5 should 
probably note that tunneled links are excluded from the prohibition.

Ted Hardie:
Comment:
[2004-07-08] In Section 6:

       A tunnel interface (e.g., the abstract endpoint of an
       IPv6-over-IPv6 tunnel [8], presumably established over either the
       Ethernet or the point-to-point link.)

COMMENT:  In general, this is a very helpful example.  I would
suggest, though, that defining the tunnel interface as established
over the Ethernet might help illustrate the point that it gets
its own link-local zone, where two interfaces to the same Ethernet
link do not.  Not strictly necessary, but it would be a good opportunity
to make the point.

Scott Hollenbeck:
Comment:
[2004-07-01] A table of contents would be helpful.  The I-D checklist 
says one is required for documents longer than 15 pages.

Bert Wijnen:
Comment:
[2004-07-08]
This formulation (towards bottom of page 6) sounds/feels a bit strange:
   dedicated purpose.  An entry of a Management Information Base (MIB)
   will be an example of the dedicated purpose.  The actual
Not sure what "An entry of a .. (MIB)" is.
Maybe a better sentence might be

   Usage of the index to identify an entry in the Management Information
   Base (MIB) is an example of the dedicated purpose.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 23:37:26 +0900

>>>>> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 17:12:09 +0900, 
>>>>> JINMEI Tatuya <[email-masked]> said:

> propose resolutions in separate messages, copying to each reviewer.

(Forgot to mention this) I've simply accepted the following two
comments, for which I won't make explicit responses.

>>    Base (MIB) is an example of the dedicated purpose.

p.s. when I first received the comments, I didn't know the
categorization of the IESG comments (e.g., "DISCUSS" seems to be
something like a "mandatory comment for publication", but the
semantics is not very trivial for me).  Is there a pointer that talks
about this point?

					JINMEI, Tatuya