Subject: Re: WG Last Call: three draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-*01 documents

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 15:51:18 +0200

Pekka Savola wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> This is a WG Last Call for comments on sending the following the next
> three "Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Standards"
> documents to the IESG for consideration as Informational RFCs:
> 
> Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
>   http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt

4.1  RFC 1771 A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4) 

   This RFC defines a protocol used for exchange of IPv4 routing 
   information and does not support IPv6.  A new EGP must be defined for 
   the exchange of IPv6 routing information. 

This and other references to BGP4 seem to ignore BGP4+ (RFC 2858) even though
it is listed!

5.1  RFC 1195 Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and dual 
    environments (IS-IS) 

   This document specifies a protocol for the exchange of IPv4 routing 
   information.  It is incompatible with IPv6.  There are substantial 
   work being done on a newer version of IS-IS that should include IPv6 
   routing. 

s/are/is/. Also is this up to date?

5.2  RFC 1370 Applicability Statement for OSPF 

   This document discusses a version of OSPF that is limited to IPv4.  
   It is expected that a similar document be assigned for when a version 
   of OSPF that supports IPv6 is established. 

s/be assigned/will be written/. Also is this up to date?

5.19   RFC 2338 Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP) 
...
   There are numerous other references to 32-bit IP addresses.  There 
   does not seem to be any reason that a new version of this protocol 
   could be straightforwardly be developed for IPv6. 

Does this say what it seems to say, or is there a missing "not"?

There are at least two places in the draft that need:

s/depreciated/deprecated/

All this results from a superficial survey of the draft, so I suspect
that there are other nits as well. This is not ready to ship.

> Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Security Area Standards
>   http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-sec-01.txt

Did not review.

> 
> Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Transport Area
> Standards
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-trans-01.txt

From a superficial review, this looks reasonably OK to me, but I have
not made a full review.

   Brian

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 22:43:08 +0300 (EEST)

Hi,

> This and other references to BGP4 seem to ignore BGP4+ (RFC 2858) even though

True, but the comments you quote are all from sections 3-6, which should 
(according to the methodology), be examined in the "vacuum", not looking 
forward to documents which fix the issues.  There has been some slippage 
from this though.

Are there serious objections to this original approach?  Note that at 
least half a dozen people who have reviewed the document have complained 
(to a smaller or greater extent) about it.

This certainly needs some rewording, though.
 
> s/are/is/. Also is this up to date?

Close, perhaps something like:

    This document specifies a protocol for the exchange of IPv4 routing 
    information.  Extensions are being specified to also handle IPv6.

[and elaborate in section 7]

> s/be assigned/will be written/. Also is this up to date?

Pretty close, but I'd say "may be written".  I'm not sure if it's really 
worth the bits..

> Does this say what it seems to say, or is there a missing "not"?

The sentence is too difficult to understand (IMHO) anyway, so probably 
best reword it to something like:

    There are numerous other references to 32-bit IP addresses.  The 
    protocol cannot be extended to handle IPv6.  Instead, a new 
    version protocol is being specified to work with IPv6. 
 
> s/depreciated/deprecated/

Yep.
 
> that there are other nits as well. This is not ready to ship.

Agreed.

Thanks,

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 22:45:50 +0200

>> This and other references to BGP4 seem to ignore BGP4+ (RFC 2858) 
>> even though it is listed!

> forward to documents which fix the issues.  There has been some 

Ok, I'm new here, so I'm not aware of earlier discussions, but... How 
can it be useful to say that there must be a new EGP while in fact we 
already have multiprotocol extensions that enable BGP4 to support IPv6, 
which are widely implemented? This will only confuse people.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2003 11:13:34 +0200

> which are widely implemented? This will only confuse people.

Indeed. So if you want to stick to the original idea for sections 3-6,
the whole sentence starting  "A new EGP..." should simply be deleted.
It's necessary and sufficient to state that the protocol does not
support IPv6. 

    Brian

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 09:32:49 +0300 (EEST)

> It's necessary and sufficient to state that the protocol does not

Agreed, this should be OK.