Hi Warren, all good to me. Once you submit the new revision I’ll submit the shepherd writeup.
Ciao L. > On 24 Nov 2025, at 21:39, Warren Kumari <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 10:11 AM, Luigi Iannone <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> P.S. >> You may consider as well to take care of the idnits: >> https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-intarea-v4-via-v6-04.txt > > > > Thank you — I have addressed most of these in the editor copy. > > The ones which I did not are related to: > == There are 6 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses > in the document. If these are example addresses, they should be changed. > I did not address these, as they are only in the "# Implementation Status ( > This section to be removed before publication. )" section. > > >> >> L. >> >>> On 21 Nov 2025, at 14:43, Luigi Iannone <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Juliusz, >>> >>> Thanks for the update. >>> >>>> On 20 Nov 2025, at 13:56, Juliusz Chroboczek <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I did read this document as part of my shepherding. >>>>> >>>>> Very well written and to the point. Thank you. >>>> >>>> Thanks, Luigi. >>>> >>>>> I have a couple of nits that I put hereafter, marked with [LI]. >>>> >>>> I've just published -04, which includes your changes except the following >>>> one: >>>> >>>>>> Resolution may be recursive: the next-hop may itself be a prefix that >>>>>> requires further resolution to map to the outgoing interface and L2 >>>>>> address. V4-via-v6 routing does not prevent recursive resolution. >>>>> >>>>> [LI] Does this include any form of recursion or just v4 -> v6 -> v6 ….. >>>>> etc ? >>>>> Can you clarify? >>> >>> Actually my point was about clearly stating that once you are in the ipv6 >>> domain you stay in ipv6. >>> But at the end of the day since this document is about v4-via-v6 it should >>> be ok the way it is stated now. > > > > Thank you. > >>> >>>> >>>> Since we only define v4-via-v6, once you're in v6 land you stay there. If >>>> we were to ever define v6-via-v4 (which I'm not advocating), then you >>>> could in principle alternate between the two domains, which would likely >>>> lead to an increase in nervous breakdowns among network administrators. >>>> >>>> I'm not too keen on expanding on this statement, since I have no >>>> operational experience with recursive v4-via-v6, and I'm afraid I'll say >>>> something wrong. So please let me take the low-risk path of not saying >>>> anything more about recursion, at least until we get some operational >>>> experience with recursion together with v4-via-v6. >>>> >>>> Thanks again, >>>> >>>> -- Juliusz >>> >>> >>> The following comment in section 4 has not been addressed. >>> >>>> >>>> Routers implementing the mechanism described in this document do not >>>> need to have any IPv4 addresses assigned to any of their interfaces, >>>> and RFC 1812 does not specify what happens if no router-id has been >>> >>> [LI] Any reason why “RFC 1812” is not in brackets? >>> Any reason not evident to me? > > > Nope, just an oversight; thank you for catching it. > > W > >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> L.
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
