Hi Jari and all, Jari Arkko wrote: > I have not seen any reviews yet. Please take the time to look at this > draft, as several reviews are necessary in order to move the document > forward.
The overall document is fine for me, but there could be a statement about the alignment or non-alignment of IPv4/IPv6 RAO value registries. So as far as I read the document both registries are independently managed by IANA. If this is the case, please state so in section 3. If an allocation request in one registry should automatically allocate the same value in the other registry it should be mentioned. If there are technical reasons to not align the registries for future allocations, there should also be statement in the draft. Other than that I have only some minor editorial comments: sec. 1: There can be up to 65536 values for the RAO. Yet, currently there is only a repository for IPv6 values. No repository or allocation policies are defined for IPv4. I find the term repository somewhat confusing and I'd prefer the term registry (as usual and mentioned in RFC 2711). So I propose the following text change: There can be up to 65536 values for the RAO. Yet, currently there is only an IANA managed repository for IPv6 values as specified in RFC 2711. No registry or allocation policies are defined for IPv4 RAO value so far. sec. 2: One difference betwen the specifications for the IPv4 and IPv6 Router s/betwen/between values (1-65535) are reserved. No mechanism is provided for the allocation of these values by IANA. proposed change to: values (1-65535) are reserved. Neither a management mechanism (e.g., such as an IANA registry) nor an allocation policy are provided for the IPv4 RAO values. sec. 3.2: currently). The reason is that it is a duplicate value, aggreagation s/aggreagation/aggregation Regards, Roland _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
