Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment-07
review-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment-07-genart-lc-sparks-2022-09-24-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2022-09-26
Requested 2022-09-12
Authors Giuseppe Fioccola , Paolo Volpato , Nalini Elkins , Jordi Palet Martinez , Gyan Mishra , Chongfeng Xie
Draft last updated 2022-09-24
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -07 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Dnsdir Telechat review of -07 by Peter van Dijk (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Robert Sparks
State Completed
Review review-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment-07-genart-lc-sparks-2022-09-24
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/F47VyYgPcz-3ggZraZAjBvuywqE
Reviewed revision 07 (document currently at 08)
Result Ready with Nits
Completed 2022-09-24
review-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment-07-genart-lc-sparks-2022-09-24-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment-07
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 2022-09-24
IETF LC End Date: 2022-09-26
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Mostly ready for publication as an Informational RFC, but with nits to
address before publication.

I appreciate that this document represents a significant amount of discussion,
and agree that obsoleting RFC6036 is the right thing to do.

However, it is unclear who this document is for. It doesn't feel like it's for
people working on standardization or regulation, nor does it feel like a
roadmap into other work or sources of information. Parts of it _begin_ to feel
like it's intended to help people who are managing networks going through
transition, but the language in those sections is not addressed to them. Is it
primarily a guide to the narrative IPv6 evangelists could use when approaching
other audiences?

I don't object to publishing this in its current form (but suggest addressing
the below nits), but I really wonder if it would be more useful to reconsider
the audience(s) and goals and write more explicitly to them.

It's hard to tell what in this document is repetition of results from other
sources, and what is new synthesis and analysis.

There is language that should be adjusted to reflect being published in
archival series. Example: "This document intends to"

I recognize that this is a matter of style, but I find the use of phrases like
"it may be interesting to", "it is worth mentioning", and similar to be
distracting. Please consider removing the phrases - the point of the sentences
will become stronger.

There are a few sentences that could be adjusted to make them easier for
non-native english speakers to translate. Places like "Their actions cannot be
objected, ". It would be good to scrub these before they get to the rfc-editor.

The document is acronym-heavy, and some acronyms are used so few times that
expanding them on _every_ use is better than just on first use. Example: FBB.

It is uncomfortable to see "It is important to say that IPv6 is not more or
less secure than IPv4". First - are you telling the readers that it is
important for them to say this? Or stating that it's important for this
document to say it? Second, the rest of the document doesn't support the
statement. Instead, it almost directly contradicts it, by pointing to the
relative maturity of implementations, the larger potential attack surface, etc.
Why is this sentence (at the beginning of 5.4.1) in the document? Could the
statement simply be removed?

Has potential selection bias been considered in the analysis of the survey in
appendix A? Perhaps it would be more accurate to title section 3.2 "IPv6 among
Internet Service Providers in Europe"?

At "theoretical ratio", I suggest instead of using that phrase, you explain why
you needed to say it. I suggest something like: "This is not a claim that each
person uses this many addresses", or simply talking about the ratio without
this disclaimer - the readers will already be familiar with the characteristics
of per-capita metrics.

In 3.3, last sentence of the first paragraph - it's not clear that you actually
state otherwise in the text that follows. If you do, stating otherwise needs to
be done more clearly. If you don't, you don't need this sentence.

Micro-nit in figure 3: Wolrdwide -> Worldwide