Hello,
A few comments; I didn't bother splitting "editorial" and "substantial",
as it isn't so long a document.
IPv6 Documentation Address
draft-huston-ipv6-documentation-prefix-00.txt
==> synchronize the title: Address Space? Address Prefix?
This
prefix has been assigned by the Asia Pacific Network Information
Centre (APNIC) for this purpose, on behalf of the Regional Internet
Registries.
and later:
Following acceptance within the addressing community of a proposal
for a block of IPv6 address space to be created for documentation
purposes, the Regional Internet Registries allocated a unicast
address prefix for documentation purposes.
==> "on behalf" (and similar in the later quote) implies that RIR's have
agreed on this beforehand. I've hard time believing this is an accurate
statement, as I've never came across discussion about reserving a doc
prefix from IANA allocations in RIPE.
Have I missed something?
To allow documentation to accurately describe deployment examples the
use of site local or link local addresses is inappropriate, and a
==> s/examples/examples,/
prefix-based proposal [3]for multicast addresses.
==> s/[3]/[3] /
Multicast addresses can also be reserved for documentation using this
document reserved address space together with the Unicast
prefix-based proposal [3]for multicast addresses.
==> note that you may also have to be able to demonstrate or document
multicast addresses which do *not* use unicast-prefix-based addressing, so
reserving a documentation prefix from other parts of the multicast
prefixes is probably also at least marginally useful.
address block to the list of non-routeable IPv6 address space, and if
==> s/routeable/routable/
4. IANA Considerations
IANA is to reserve 2001:0DB8::/32 address space out of the global
unicast address space as a documentation-only prefix, and note this
reservation in the IPv6 address registry. No end party is to be
assigned this address.
==> will someone make a whois entry for this, explaining what it is?
5. Security Considerations
IPv6 addressing documents do not have any direct impact on Internet
infrastructure security. Authentication of IPv6 packets is defined
in [4].
==> remove the last sentence, it is irrelevant IMO, and gives a false
impression that that's all you have to do to secure IPv6 packets. Or if
not, at least also refer to ESP or some other IPsec document, too.
References
==> split the references to normative and informative; I assume [1] and
[3] are normative.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
