On 5/11/17 07:16, Tore Anderson wrote:
Actually I'm trying to not imply anywhere that 64:ff9b:1::/48 is a/the
«WKP» (although the previous point you brought up was a failure in that
regard). The WKP is defined to be exactly 64:ff9b::/96 by RFC6052, and
I do not want to cause any ambiguity here.
I rewrote the paragraph in question as follows:
Note that 64:ff9b:1::/48 (or any more-specific prefix) is distinct from
the WKP 64:ff9b::/96. Therefore, the restrictions on the use of the WKP
described in Section 3.1 of <xref target="RFC6052"/> do not apply to the
use of 64:ff9b:1::/48.
Is that better?
Yes, I think that text plus the previous clarification is good.
In Section 3, you state:
Since the WKP 64:ff9b::/96 was reserved by [RFC6052], several new
IPv4/IPv6 translation mechanisms have been defined by the IETF
I think it would be useful to mention some of these new translation
mechanisms as non-normative references, and if need be, show an
example of interoperability.
How about: «Since the WKP 64:ff9b::/96 was reserved by [RFC6052],
several new IPv4/IPv6 translation mechanisms have been defined by the
IETF, such as [RFC6146] and [RFC7915].» ?
These two mechanisms do not interoperate at all, so they need different
translation prefixes if they're to be deployed in the same network.
That works.
NITS:
In your Abstract, you mention RFC6890, but this does not appear to be
an xref to it, and it should be.
As mentioned by others, the idnits tool complains about xrefs in the
abstract. In any case I've just dropped the Updates on 6890 completely.
Thanks.
Joe