Subject: RE: WG Last Call: a batch of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-*01 documents

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 08:30:49 -0400

> This is a WG Last Call for comments on sending the following 
> first three 
> "Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF 
> Standards" documents 
> to the IESG for consideration as Informational RFCs:
> 
> Introduction to the Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently 
> Deployed IETF Standards
>   
>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro-01
.txt

I don't see the point of section 1.2 it is commentary and it is
imperative that this document just report the facts.  I do not agree or
disagree with the statements I just don't see its value, and worst case
it could affect the objectivity view of the readers impression of the
document.

3.1.1 This entire series of documents should not make judgement calls as
is done with 1122 and 1123 (should be written wordage).  It should just
say has IPv6 dependency which was done well in the next set of documents
we have been asked to review.  Please remove all recommendations or
perceived recommendations in this document series.

3.1.2 Same comment as 3.1.1

3.1.9 A6 records are dead.

3.1.11 Same comment as 3.1.1

3.1.22 Same comment as 3.1.1

3.2.1 DHCPv6 will be RFC 3315 very soon as a note.  Its in RFC editor
queue.

3.3.25 Same comment as 3.1.1

3.3.71 Same comment as 3.1.1. and this one has capitalized MUST (not
good)

References to Mobile IPv6 need to use draft-24 or say RFC PS is eminant
and also could be used for DHCPv6 references too.

If the wording is fixed as I state an issue in 3.1.1. then this is ready
to go.

It is a very good piece of work too.

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

This document is fine and the wording is good.  e.g. IPv4 address
dependency is used not statements of what to do.

I am fine with this moving to INFO.

>Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Operations & 
>Management Area Standards
 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-ops-01.t
xt

This is good piece of work too.  The detail of what needs to be done is
very good but it should be left as that an explanation.  There are many
instances again of my comment in INTRO 3.1.1 above.  Just go through the
doc and just report what is missing.  Make no recommendations with
SHOULD, MAY, or MUST and this is fine.

I think the INTRO should be fixed before the others can move to INFO.

thanks
/jim