Subject: [v6ops] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6-xlat-prefix-01: (with DISCUSS)

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 12:07:23 -0700

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6-xlat-prefix-01: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6-xlat-prefix/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

* Section 4.2.

I found the explanation to be useful but the prefix that was not selected seems
to be wrong (a prefix with non-zero bits past the prefix length does not really
make sense). The prefix that is adjacent to 64:ff9b::/96 is actually
64:ff9a:ffff::/48 and not 64:ff9a:ffff:ffff::/48 as described in the document.
This means that most of the text that follows is incorrect. i.e. The range will
be 64:ff9a:ffff:: - 64:ff9b::ffff:ffff and not 64:ff9a:ffff:ffff:: -
64:ff9b::ffff:ffff

P.S.: I thought hard about whether this should be a DISCUSS or a COMMENT but I
decided to go with a DISCUSS because I think it really needs to be fixed

---

From: Tore Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 10:54:44 +0200

* Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>

Hi Suresh,

Good catch - thanks!

I've prepared an update. I'd appreciate it if you could confirm that it
resolves your concern fully before I post it to the data tracker
though. RFC diff here:

https://tools.ietf.org//rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6-xlat-prefix-01&url2=https://fud.no/draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6-xlat-prefix-02.txt

Full new draft: https://fud.no/draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6-xlat-prefix-02.txt

Tore

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 13:38:02 -0400

Hi Tore,
  Thanks for taking care of this quickly. I have looked at the diff and it
nicely addresses my concerns.

Regards
Suresh

On Jun 20, 2017 2:24 PM, "Tore Anderson" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> https://tools.ietf.org//rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-v6ops-
> v4v6-xlat-prefix-01&url2=https://fud.no/draft-ietf-
> v6ops-v4v6-xlat-prefix-02.txt
>

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 15:00:20 -0400

+1 on the good catch, Suresh. V6 addresses tend to be eye-charts :-)

Tore, please post a new version when you get a chance.
W

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf