Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt

From: "Barany, Pete" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 08:15:17 -0700

Hi,

I made a comment about this Internet draft (-01) back on Aug. 8. I
insert it below because it still seems that it does not mention SIP,
SDP, RTSP, RTP for some reason. I know the intent is to get this
documents out as quickly as possible, but these are significant
omissions IMHO.

Regards,

Pete

--> INSERT e-mail

Hi, 

I took a look at this document and have a comment: 

Before the IPv4 survey I-D (the latest "old" version was
<draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-00.txt>) was split up into separate I-Ds
corresponding to IETF areas, there was discussion of SIP, SDP, RTSP (and
there should have been some discussion of RTP/RTCP since SDES CNAME can
carry IP addresses). However, upon reviewing the I-D
<draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt> I see no mention of these
protocols. Was there a specific reason for not including them?

Granted, there are a lot of SIP-based RFCs and Internet drafts, but at a
minimum, shouldn't we mention the basic ones (don't know about the
RFCbis I-Ds):

(1) RFC 3261 "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol" 
(2) RFC 3266 "Support for IPv6 in Session Description Protocol (SDP)" 
(3) RFC 2327 "SDP: Session Description Protocol" -> being updated by
<draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-new-13.txt> 
(4) RFC 2326 "Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP)-> being updated by
<draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc2326bis-04.txt> 
(5) RFC 3550 "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications" 

Regards, 

Pete

--> End INSERT e-mail

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of [email-masked]
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 7:50 AM
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Operations Working Group of the
IETF.

	Title		: Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed
IETF Application Area Standards
	Author(s)	: P. Nesser II
	Filename	: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt
	Pages		: 55
	Date		: 2003-10-23
	
The transition from an all IPv4 network to an all IPv6 network
requires several interim steps, being one of them the evolution of
current IPv4 dependent specifications to a format independent of the
type of IP addressing schema used. Hence, it is hoped that
specifications will be re-designed and re-implemented to become
network address independent, or at least to dually support IPv4 and
IPv6.
To achieve that step, it is necessary to survey and document all IPv4
dependencies experienced by current standards - Full, Draft, and
Proposed - and Experimental RFCs. Hence, this document describes
IPv4 addressing dependencies that deployed IETF Application Area
documented Standards may experience.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.
txt

To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to 
ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the
message.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the
username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail
readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 18:43:06 +0300 (EEST)

Hi,

> documents out as quickly as possible, but these are significant

Thanks for the reminder.

All of these documents are covered under the _Transport_ area document 
(except 3266 which was too new, and the forward reference was typoed).  
The border between the areas is rather blurry at times..

The wording may be a bit unoptimal in the transport document, but 
suggestions are welcome..

Hope this clarifies..

-- 
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: "Rute Sofia" <[email-masked]>
Date: 24 Oct 2003 16:44:18 +0000

Hi,

I'm the person reviewing the draft and in fact, I did miss your mail on 
August. 

RFCs in the drafts are being surveyed up to 3200. That is why 1, 2 and 5 
are missing (3266 is out of the scope of the apps draft, I believe, 
given that it already addresses IPv6; the current draft is simply a 
survey). However, 3 and 4 should be there. My fault, it seems. Pekka, 
should I add them?

Rute