👍🏼
Carlos Pignataro reacted via Gmail
On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 10:36 PM <mohamed.boucadair@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Carlos,
Thank you for promptly handling this review request. Much appreciated.
Yes, you are right about the use of normative language. That is a convention used in v6ops and 6man for similar efforts.
Also, good point for the terminology. No need to reference RFC6434 or its successor RFC8504 as we have what we need in 8200 itself :-)
The text can be tweaked, e.g.:
OLD:
The following terminology is defined for this document.
NEW:
The document makes use of the following terms from Section 2 [RFC8200]:
Cheers,
Med
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Carlos Pignataro via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx>
> Envoyé : mercredi 23 avril 2025 18:52
> À : int-dir@xxxxxxxx
> Cc : draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx;
> v6ops@xxxxxxxx
> Objet : Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd-07
>
>
> Document: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd
> Title: IPv6 CE Routers LAN Prefix Delegation
> Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro
> Review result: Ready with Nits
>
> Hi!
>
> Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd
> Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at
> 07)
> Type Telechat Review
> Team Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
> Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro
>
> This is a simple document that defines “requirements” for IPv6 CE
> routers to support DHCPv6 PD for distributing unused prefixes that
> were delegated to a
> IPv6 CE router.
>
> It looks straightforward and complete, with this review
> highlighting only some minor issues and nits.
>
> First, I find it interesting that lots of 2119 language is present
> in an Informational document. I imagine that is following rfc7084.
>
> Second, on the terminology section:
>
> ---
> 3. Terminology
>
> The following terminology is defined for this document.
>
> * IPv6 node: a device that implements IPv6
>
> * IPv6 router: a node that forwards IPv6 packets not explicitly
> addressed to itself.
>
> * IPv6 host: Any IPv6 node that is not a router.
> ---
>
> All these terms are already defined e.g., in rfc6434. This document
> makes it sound as if it is defining them for a first time here,
> please update this including the normative citation for the
> definition.
>
> I hope these are useful and clear.
>
> Thanks again!
>
> Carlos.
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
