Re: [MBONED] Fwd: I-D Action:draft-ietf-mboned-rfc3171bis-06.txt

[Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda at icann.org>]

Hi Bharat,

On 24/03/2009 11:17, "Bharat Joshi" <bharat_joshi at infosys.com> wrote:

[...]

> ? In section 3, in the table, it will be better if we either use number of
> multicast addresses available fo use or '/x' method to represent the size of a
> given block.

We've tried to use CIDR slash notation where the address range is a single
prefix. However, where the range is not a single prefix we have used the
number of individual addresses in the range rather than using a series of
ever smaller CIDR prefixes. For example, we have:

224.0.2.0 - 224.0.255.255     (65024)    AD-HOC Block I

Whereas, if we used multiple prefixes it would be:

224.0.2.0 - 224.0.255.255     (/17,/18,/19,/20,/21,/22,/23)    AD-HOC Block
I

The latter obviously has line length issues, which makes it awkward for use
in a table. I realise that the table uses two different mechanisms for
showing the same thing but had hoped that it was a reasonable compromise
between readability and brevity.

> ? In section 5.1, s/for protocol control that/for protocol control traffic
> that/

I'm happy to make this change if no-one else minds. It's in section 5 rather
than 5.1, though.
 
> ? In section 9.2, in the following line "Addresses within this block MUST NOT
> appear on the public Internet.". Are we talking about the AD-HOC Block II when
> we say 'this block'? I think not. Can we clarify this?

Can you please suggest alternative wording to achieve the effect you would
like? Or if you think it is just the location of the statement, I suppose we
could create a section 9.2.1 to add clarity.

> ? In section 12.2, A small typo in "temporary assignment or the addresses
> assigned", 'or' -> 'of'

Good catch. Thanks.

> ? In section 12.2, after the one month period, can the registrant who was
> using these addresses, get allocated these addresses again? It is mentioned
> that this won't be available for one calender year but as it is not being used
> by anyone so can the last registrant can get it before this period ends.

I think that sounds reasonable. The reason for the quarantine is to try and
minimise the chance of a later user of the address space having problems
with side effects from a previous user's use. In this case, that seems not
to be a problem.

What do people think about this change:

"Addresses returned to the IANA when a temporary assignment ends MUST NOT be
assigned to anyone other than the last registrant for at least one calendar
year."

Best regards,

Leo Vegoda