Last Call Review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc4843-bis-05
review-ietf-hip-rfc4843-bis-05-opsdir-lc-hares-2014-06-27-00

Status:  Ready



Editorial Status: Easily read

Technical Review comments:



The reviewer prefers the honest description of this document on

a)



Why HIP Orchid v2 address forms are being requested,

b)



Why the HIP Orchid v1 address cannot be used, and

c)



Design choices for the prefix forms,

d)



Why this address must be added to an ACL list to keep it from being routable by
IPv6-capable routing (IPv6-only, IPv4/IPv6) instead of hidden “default”,

e)



Why this is needed for migrating IPv6 APIs that utilize this feature, and

f)



The indication that groups are implementing using this work.



Congratulations and Kudos to the authors for boldly stating the necessary
design issues prior to asking for addresses.   This draft clearly states why
this is useful to obtain a portion of the Special Purpose address space.



Technical/Administrative issue:



 The IANA text for section 6 clearly identifies the IANA registry.  However,
 I’m not clear about the form IANA wants to review the entry for this table:



http://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry/iana-ipv6-special-registry.xhtml



The authors should verify with IANA that the form of their IANA consideration
sections is as IANA wants to see it.





Editorial Nit Comments (should fix, but not required)



Section 5 paragraph 2

Old:

“Therefore, the present design allows to use different hash functions to be
used per given Context ID for constructing ORCHIDs from input bit strings. “

New:

“Therefore, the present design allows the use of different hash functions per

Given Context ID for constructing ORCHIDS for input bit strings.”



Grammatical note for Julien and Francis:  Old sentences utilizes the infinitive
form (to use/to be used) without having any real verb.  Since this is a
specification going with the present tense verb provides a precise definition.