[ipv6-wg] Version 6 of IPv6 prefix delegations BCOP is out

Hey,

On 09/08/2017 16:28, Yannis Nikolopoulos wrote:
> Hello again and thank you for the effort,

No problem...

I addressed some of your comments and here is the version 7 f the draft:

https://www.sinog.si/docs/draft-IPv6pd-BCOP-v7.pdf

I hope that now everyone is happy with the text and we can move on
towards getting a stable RIPE BCP document (after RIPE NCC staff does
the language pass... :) )

But, if there are substantial comments or suggestions, we are still in
editing phase...

Cheers, Jan Zorz
(on behalf of v6_pd BCOP co-authors)

> 
> just a few more comments
> 
> 
> Executive Summary, b2: The benefit is not clear. "Differentiate..., even
> if it increases complexity". I would expect something along the lines
> of: "Differentiate..., even if it increases complexity, because of this
> and that benefit"
> 
> Chapter 3, third paragraph: "This may be immediate in terms of other
> networks or content providers...". We might want to rewrite this as
> "This may have an immediate impact, like when other networks or content
> providers..."
> 
> Chapter 4, first paragraph: "At this point, the IPv4 scarcity needs to
> be reconsidered because the abundance of IPv6 addresses enables
> numbering decisions to be taken differently." . Its not the scarcity
> that needs to be reconsidered, its the numbering decisions due to that
> scarcity.
> 
> 4.1.2: "Finally, certain hardware in the ISP infrastructure may consume
> resources when using numbered links. This is a very specific situation
> that you may need to consider." As a more general comment, I feel that
> this BCOP is lacking examples that make the points "relatable"
> 
> 4.2.1: "This is probably the most practical and pragmatic way..."
> Desired it may be, pragmatic it certainly isn't
> 
> 
> cheers,
> 
> Yannis
> 
> 
> On 08/08/2017 12:01 PM, Jan Zorz - Go6 wrote:
>> Dear RIPE IPv6 WG,
>>
>> We received offline some good and valuable comments from MarcoH,
>> addressed them and issued the version 6 of the document draft.
>>
>> https://sinog.si/docs/draft-IPv6pd-BCOP-v6.pdf
>>
>> Please, read and comment, if you think that we need to carry on with
>> editing this document. If not, I would like to see if we can reach a
>> consensus to move forward and ask RIPE staff to do the language check
>> and publish this document as RIPE BCP.
>>
>> Any comments? Suggestions?
>>
>> For v6_pd_BCOP co-authors team, Jan Žorž
>>
> 


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3976 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20170811/f549e0e3/attachment.p7s>