Subject: [Autoconf] draft-ietf-autoconf-manetarch-06.txt

From: Thomas Clausen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:21:06 +0200

Dear all,

It's been about 2 weeks since the -06 of the I-D in subj was posted,  
and other than Freds good remark there have been no other comments to  
this version of the I-D on the list.

I'd like to recall that a WGLC has ended on this I-D, and so we  
should be moving the document forward if we're happy with it. I'm  
tempted to interpret silence as "yes, we're happy with it", but  
please do speak up either way.

With the hope that we can move this I-D forward before Vancouver,

Thomas

-- 
Thomas Clausen
[email-masked]
http://www.thomasclausen.org/
http://hipercom.thomasclausen.org/

_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:03:52 +0200

I'm tempted to speak up but I don't know what to say.

For one, I feel the urge to advance the document and, generally 
speaking, I'm very supportive about the ideas in the document.  Thus, I 
can easily say - yes I'm happy with it.

But then, looking at section 5.1 General Address Architecture:
-I can't parse the figure: where are the interfaces precisely?  Is the
  loopback assigned P:1::/64?
-"MANET interfaces are specifically *NOT* configured with this prefix.":
  which prefix?  The previous paragraph mentions at least two prefixes.
-what's the difference between "assigned" and "delegated" prefix?  The
  picture seems to make a distinction, but I don't understand.

Also, the paragraph should also let the MANET Router have completely 
different prefixes on their interfaces.  Currently, the paragraph says 
that there should be (eg) a common P::/62 out of which (eg) P:1::/64 and 
P:2::/64 are assigned on two different interfaces.  This is an example 
ok.  But there should also be a possibility of eg Q::/64 and R::/64  on 
two different interfaces, Q and R having only the first three bits 
common (001), and without needing to have 001::/64 "delegated" to the 
MANET router.

Otherwise - yes, I'm fine with the document.

Alex
PS: I hope I'm not exhausting the authors with these comments :-)

Thomas Clausen wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> It's been about 2 weeks since the -06 of the I-D in subj was posted, and 
> other than Freds good remark there have been no other comments to this 
> version of the I-D on the list.
> 
> I'd like to recall that a WGLC has ended on this I-D, and so we should 
> be moving the document forward if we're happy with it. I'm tempted to 
> interpret silence as "yes, we're happy with it", but please do speak up 
> either way.
> 

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________