-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > Please wait for direction from your document shepherd > or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
I see the telechat is scheduled for tomorrow. I will wait. Regards, Seiichi Brian E Carpenter wrote: > OK, we do disagree about that ;-) > > On 2010-02-03 10:23, black_da...@emc.com wrote: >> The concern is not whether it is required (MUST) vs. recommended >> (SHOULD), but rather than the canonical form is not sufficiently >> specified. Towards that end we disagree on the level of need for >> pseudocode. >> >> Thanks, >> --David >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: gen-art-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:gen-art-boun...@ietf.org] On >> Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter >>> Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 3:27 PM >>> To: Black, David >>> Cc: 6man-cha...@tools.ietf.org; akawamu...@mesh.ad.jp; ipv6@ietf.org; >> kawashi...@necat.nec.co.jp; >>> i...@ietf.org; gen-...@ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART reviewof >> draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation-04 >>> David, >>> >>> The problem is that we cannot make this a required format. Like it or >>> not, there is a range of ways to represent an IPv6 address in text >>> form, and has been for many years. 2001:DEAD:BEEF:: and >> 2001:deAd:BEeF:: >>> are the same address. >>> >>> The draft is very precise on this point: >>> >>> The >>> recommendation in this document SHOULD be followed by systems when >>> generating an address to represent as text, but all implementations >>> MUST accept any legitimate [RFC4291] format. >>> >>> This is the only approach which is consistent with history. Making >>> that SHOULD into a MUST would be simply unrealistic. But I really >>> don't understand your objection to this as a standards track document. >>> It's a complete, if simple, normative specification. (It could also >>> have been a BCP, imho, but the WG preferred standards track.) >>> >>> I don't see any particular need to provide pseudocode; it wouldn't >>> change the normative content. It certainly wouldn't do any harm. >>> >>> Regards >>> Brian Carpenter >>> >>> On 2010-02-03 03:36, black_da...@emc.com wrote: >>>> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) >>>> reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see >>>> http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). >>>> >>>> Please wait for direction from your document shepherd >>>> or AD before posting a new version of the draft. >>>> >>>> Document: draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation-04 >>>> Reviewer: David L. Black >>>> Review Date: February 2, 2010 >>>> IESG Telechat date: February 4, 2010 >>>> >>>> Summary: >>>> This draft is on the right track, but has open issues, described >>>> in the review. >>>> >>>> Comments: >>>> The draft provides recommendations for a canonical format for IPv6 >>>> addresses. >>>> >>>> The open issue is that the draft only provides recommendations, and >>>> does not tightly specify a canonical format. A tight specification >>>> of a canonical format would include at least one (and preferably >>>> both) of: >>>> - An algorithm to test whether an IPv6 text address >>>> is in the canonical format >>>> - An algorithm to convert an IPv6 text address into canonical >>>> form. >>>> Code or pseudo-code should be used, and note that the latter item >>>> subsumes the former (a canonicalization algorithm makes no changes >> to >>>> input that's already in the canonical format). In the absence of >>>> these elements, I'm not convinced that the draft defines an >>>> interoperable standard that solves the problem. >>>> >>>> This document is a good start - I think it's a fine requirements >>>> document that would be appropriate to publish as an Informational >> RFC, >>>> but I believe that more work is needed to produce a standards-track >> RFC >>>> that specifies an interoperable representation. If this document >>>> is published in its current form, it should be edited slightly to >>>> make it clear that it is only a requirements document. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> --David >>>> ---------------------------------------------------- >>>> David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer >>>> EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 >>>> +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 >>>> black_da...@emc.com Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 >>>> ---------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Gen-art mailing list >>>> gen-...@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gen-art mailing list >>> gen-...@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) iEYEARECAAYFAktozYEACgkQcrhTYfxyMkIq9gCeJaRRF6bBtCC3wKcDKo+iu7vD OaAAnAmK55UOrIXDSjs90TUBKTpqEdaw =WhO+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
