Subject: AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-6man-why64

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 09:57:11 -0400

All,
     I have completed my AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-6man-why64.  Thanks
for a well-written, clear document.  I only have a few points I would
like to work through before sending this to IETF Last Call.

1. Typically, the number of authors listed on the front page is limited
to 5 or less (https://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html#policy.authlist).
Please consider the guidance provided by the RFC Editor on reducing the
number of contributors listed on the front page.

2. DHCPv6 is mentioned several times in the document with no reference
to the actual spec.  Is that by design?  If so, why?

3. I think it is worth noting in Section 2 that DHCPv6 does not include
a prefix length in its address assignment.

4. Just a pedantic issue, but the statement that 7/8ths of the address
space is still available (section 3.1) is incorrect.  Consider that
multicast, link-locals, and ULAs occupy 1/8th of the 2000::/3 range.  If
my math is correct, that leaves 3/4ths of the address space unused.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Iliadou Paraskevi <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 17:12:08 +0300

Hello All!
The address space available must be less than the 7/8ths or around 86% according to the attached excel file.
Or it is around 85% as stated by Jeff Doyle.

Regards,

Mrs. Paraskevi  Iliadou
Head of Technical Specifications Section
TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY & CORE NETWORK DIVISION, FIXED & MOBILE
OTE S.A., 99 Kifissias Avenue, 15124, Athens, HELLAS (GR)
Phone  +30-210-611-1053, Mobile +30-6982-47-17-02
Ε-mail         [email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6 [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Brian Haberman
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 4:57 PM
To: 6man WG; [email-masked]
Subject: AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-6man-why64

All,
     I have completed my AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-6man-why64.  Thanks for a well-written, clear document.  I only have a few points I would like to work through before sending this to IETF Last Call.

1. Typically, the number of authors listed on the front page is limited to 5 or less (https://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html#policy.authlist).
Please consider the guidance provided by the RFC Editor on reducing the number of contributors listed on the front page.

2. DHCPv6 is mentioned several times in the document with no reference to the actual spec.  Is that by design?  If so, why?

3. I think it is worth noting in Section 2 that DHCPv6 does not include a prefix length in its address assignment.

4. Just a pedantic issue, but the statement that 7/8ths of the address space is still available (section 3.1) is incorrect.  Consider that multicast, link-locals, and ULAs occupy 1/8th of the 2000::/3 range.  If my math is correct, that leaves 3/4ths of the address space unused.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 08:16:27 +1200

Hi Brian,

Thanks for the review. Writing as de facto document editor:

> number of contributors listed on the front page.

I know that guidance, but I believe that all 6 listed authors contributed
substantial parts of the text. It would be discriminatory to demote any one
of them, so I will argue for leaving all of them in place.

> to the actual spec.  Is that by design?  If so, why?

No, just an oversight. Will fix.

> a prefix length in its address assignment.

Yes.

> my math is correct, that leaves 3/4ths of the address space unused.

That's why it says "almost". We can certainly put "approximately 85%"
if you prefer (see Paraskevi  Iliadou's spreadsheet that she sent, which
I think is complete). Let me know, and I'll spin a new draft.

   Brian C

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 16:29:30 -0400

Hi Brian,

> of them, so I will argue for leaving all of them in place.

Ok.  I just wanted to check and will work with the RFC Editor if it
becomes an issue.

> No, just an oversight. Will fix.

Ok.

>> a prefix length in its address assignment.

Ok.

> I think is complete). Let me know, and I'll spin a new draft.

Ah, I see how she covered the unallocated gaps in the current address
pool.  My back-of-the-envelope math didn't account for gaps.  I prefer
"approximately 85%", but will be fine with leaving it as 7/8ths if you
prefer.

Go ahead and spin a new version and I will move it along in the process.

Regards,
Brian