[6bone] comments on draft-fink-6bone-phaseout-00

[Bob Fink]

Pekka,

At 11:29 PM 1/22/2003 +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
>Hello,
>
>A few comments.
>
>In general, I think the schedule should even be sped up a bit (allocation
>DL 31.12.2003, withdrawal 31.12.2004 or 1.7.2005), but I'm okay with the
>current one if that's what folks think.
>
>Substantial:
>
>The IANA MUST reclaim the
>    3FFE::/16 prefix upon the date specified in 2.0, and MUST make
>    provisions to set it aside from any other uses for a period of at
>    least two years after this date to minimize confusion with its
>    current use for the 6bone (e.g., thus allowing production IPv6
>    networks to filter out the use of the 3FFE::/16 prefix for a
>    reasonable time after the 6bone phaseout).
>
>==> I'm not sure about the second MUST.  Perhaps a SHOULD would do?  For
>example, consider if someone specified a locator,identifier separation
>mechanisms which would use two IPv6 addresses.  Identifiers would be from
>3000::/4 and the rest would be as before.  The above wording as I read it
>would prevent the allocation of 3000::/4.

No, it only means 3ffe::/16 as it says, not anything shorter like 3000::/4. 
I can add the prefix again in the wording if you think it makes a difference.


>Editorial:
>
>    This document is intended to obsolete RFC 2471, "IPv6 Testing Address
>    Allocation", December, 1998.  RFC 2471 will become historic.
>
>==> I'm not sure of the process issue, but I'm not sure if obseleting
>means moving the obsoleted document to historic, right?  If not, these two
>requested actions should be more clearly separated.

I think moving it to historic makes it obsolete.


>    format, [TEST-OLD] was replaced with a new IPv6 testing address
>    allocation"
>
>==> add the opening " somewhere

Don't get what you mean.


>    Regional Internet Registry (RIR), National Internet Registry, or
>    Local Internet Registries (ISPs).
>==> all LIR's aren't ISPs.

Just referring to it the way the RIRs do. Should I just remove the ISP 
part, or elaborate?


>3.0 References
>
>==> references should be after security considerations

OK.


Thanks,

Bob