On 14/12/2017 17:20, Ben Campbell wrote:
...> - On my first reading, I wondered why this was informational. It seems to
seek
> to standardize protocol elements. The explanation in the shepherd report
> clarifies that; it would be helpful to include (a perhaps shortened version
> of)
> that in the draft.
Awaiting instructions, but we can certainly do that if there's to be
a new version of the draft.
>
> -2: RFC 8174 has boilerplate to address the "only in upper case" part. Please
> consider using it rather than modifying the 2119 boilerplate.
Ack, the RFC Editor could do that too.
>
> -4.4: "It is therefore important to record all the prefix assignment history."
> Isn’t this a local policy choice? Perhaps some operator believes in extreme
> log
> minimization, does this mean to argue they are mistaken?
I'd say it is a requirement in order to detect or trace lost prefixes
after outages, and probably a legal requirement in many countries
(once jurisdictions realise that IPv6 prefixes are needed for tracing,
not just addresses). But I agree that it isn't a requirement on the
protocol defined in this draft, so it should be rephrased.
Thanks
Brian
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
