datatracker.ietf.org
Sign in
Version 5.3.0, 2014-04-12
Report a bug

Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Internet Area Standards Track and Experimental Documents
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-int-03

Yes
No Objection
(was Discuss)
(was Discuss)
(was Discuss)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

Summary: Needs a YES.

[Alex Zinin]

Comment (2003-12-18)

Checked the routing doc. There has been a discussion on this doc on the routing
area mailing list and the rev seems to reflect the comments.

[Allison Mankin]

Comment (2003-12-18)

I have completed a careful reading of this and I think it did a good job.  I
appreciate the excellent response to my early review which was sent to the
v6ops WG chairs - this review stated that the organization of the document
focused on Transport documents that would have been deprecated if our policy
was not to let old PS's lie, and on documents which had been obsoleted (e.g.
RFC 2543).  The new review is very thorough and accurate, now of the right
range of documents.

[Harald Alvestrand]

Comment (2004-01-05)

The -04 version of the apps doc addresses the specific concerns I had with it.
I think the document should go out.

[Margaret Wasserman]

Comment (2003-12-17)

The Internet document says:

"3.1 RFC 791 Internet Protocol

   This specification defines IPv4 and is replaced by the IPv6
   specifications."

...which I think is a bit strange.  IPv6 does not update or
obsolete IPv4.  It's a different beast altogether.

But, I don't think that this is a serious enough issue to
block the document.

[Russ Housley]

Comment (2003-12-18)

draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro-05:

  In section 1.1, 4th paragraph: s/robudt/robust/

  In section 1.1, 7th paragraph, the document says: 'To do this the Internet
  has sacrificed the underlying "End-to-End" principle.'  I hope that we
  have not 'sacrificed' it entirely.  While I understand the point, I think
  that the sentence is too terse for many readers.  The end-to-end principle
  was waterered-down, not completely sacrificed.

  In section 1.2, 1st paragraph: s/Experimental Standards/Experimental RFCs/

draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03:

  In section 3.16, the formatting is messed up.  Please fix as follows:

    OLD:

    Also, Section 5.3.2
    (FTP COMMAND ARGUMENTS) contains:

    "<host-number> ::= <number>,<number>,<number>,<number>
    <port-number> ::= <number>,<number><number> ::= any decimal
    integer 1 through 255"

    NEW:

    Also, Section 5.3.2
    (FTP COMMAND ARGUMENTS) contains:

    "<host-number> ::= <number>,<number>,<number>,<number>
    <port-number> ::= <number>,<number>
    <number> ::= any decimal integer 1 through 255"

  In Section 5.57, formatting of the quoted text almost impossible to follow.

  In section 7.2.1, what is the value of the expired ID name in the document?

[Steven Bellovin]

Comment (2003-12-16)

I have only reviewed the security document.  It looks pretty good, but Section
7 doesn't mention 2514.  As far as I know, it's not in use, but with increasing
attention to routing security there may be some push to move it to standards
track.