Tim, One additional question:
12) Re: LPD-6, what does "that is not assigned" refer to? As far as verb agreement, it does not match "packets". Original: IPv6 CE routers MUST continue to drop packets including destination address that is not assigned to the LAN or delegated. Perhaps: IPv6 CE routers MUST continue to drop packets, including destination address, that are not assigned to the LAN or delegated. Thank you. RFC Editor/ar On Jul 3, 2025, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: Greetings, While reviewing this document during AUTH48 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9818.html and other formats), please resolve the following questions, which are also in the XML file. 1) <!-- [rfced] How may this title be rephrased for clarity? Also, is "LAN" needed in this title? (Neither "LAN" nor "local" is mentioned in the abstract.) Do either of these options convey the intended meaning? Please feel free to suggest otherwise. Original: IPv6 CE Routers LAN DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation Current: IPv6 Customer Edge (CE) Routers LAN DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation Option A: DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation on IPv6 Customer Edge (CE) Routers in LANs Option B: DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation in LANs for IPv6 Customer Edge (CE) Routers --> 2) <!--[rfced] For clarity, how may this be rephrased? In particular, the phrase "CE Router supporting prefix delegation" is unclear. Original: The default configuration of CE Router supporting prefix delegation is designed to be a flat model to support zero configuration networking. Perhaps: For prefix delegation that supports CE routers, the default configuration is designed to be a flat model to support zero-configuration networking. Or simply: For prefix delegation that supports CE routers, the default configuration is a flat model to support zero-configuration networking. --> 3) <!--[rfced] Please clarify "multi-provisioned networks". Is there another term that is more common? The term "multi-provisioned" does not appear in past RFCs or current Internet-Drafts. Original: This document does not cover dealing with multi-provisioned networks with more than one provider. --> 4) <!--[rfced] Which update do you prefer, as this definition is missing 'the', but perhaps you prefer to match the cited document? Original: IPv6 node: A device that implements IPv6 protocol. Option A: IPv6 node: A device that implements IPv6. (to match RFC 8200, which is cited in the lead-in text) Option B: IPv6 node: A device that implements the IPv6 protocol. --> 5) <!-- [rfced] FYI, for expanding GUA, "Unique" has been changed to "Unicast" in order to match RFC 4291. Please review. Original: * GUA:Global Unique Addresses, as defined in [RFC4291]. Current: GUA: Global Unicast Address, as defined in [RFC4291]. --> 6) <!--[rfced] Please clarify; how should this fragment be updated to be a sentence? Original: The end-user network for IPv6 that is a stub network. --> 7) <!--[rfced] Please review this update for accuracy; due to "its", the subject ("IPv6 CE routers") has been changed to singular. It currently reads that a single router could have more than one LAN interface. Original: LPD-1: IPv6 CE routers MUST support IPv6 prefix assignment according to Section 13.3 of [RFC8415] (Identity Association for Prefix Delegation (IA_PD) option) on its LAN interface(s). Current: LPD-1: Each IPv6 CE router MUST support IPv6 prefix assignment according to Section 13.3 of [RFC8415] (Identity Association for Prefix Delegation (IA_PD) option) on its LAN interface(s). Alternatively (both plural): LPD-1: IPv6 CE routers MUST support IPv6 prefix assignment according to Section 13.3 of [RFC8415] (Identity Association for Prefix Delegation (IA_PD) option) on their LAN interfaces. --> 8) <!--[rfced] Because the second sentence is singular, should the first sentence be parallel? Original: LPD-2: IPv6 CE routers MUST assign a prefix from the delegated prefix as specified by L-2 in Section 4.3 of [RFC7084]. If insufficient prefixes are available the IPv6 CE Router MUST log a system management error. Perhaps: LPD-2: Each IPv6 CE router MUST assign a prefix from the delegated prefix as specified by L-2 in Section 4.3 of [RFC7084]. If insufficient prefixes are available, the IPv6 CE router MUST log a system management error. --> 9) <!--[rfced] Should "both ULA and GUA" be both "ULAs and GUAs"? If so, please review whether "the GUA" is accurate in the second phrase. Original: LPD-9: If an IPv6 CE router is provisioning both ULA and GUA via prefix delegation, the GUA SHOULD appear first in the DHCPv6 packets. Perhaps: LPD-9: If an IPv6 CE router is provisioning both ULAs and GUAs via prefix delegation, the GUA SHOULD appear first in the DHCPv6 packets. Or (singular): LPD-9: If an IPv6 CE router is provisioning both the ULA and the GUA via prefix delegation, the GUA SHOULD appear first in the DHCPv6 packets. --> 10) <!--[rfced] Terminology a) This term appeared inconsistently and has been updated to the latter. Please let us know if you prefer otherwise. CE Router vs. CE router [based on usage in RFC 7084] b) Capitalization of these terms is not consistent. Please let us know your preference. Prefix Delegation vs. prefix delegation Delegated Prefix (in LPD-6) vs. delegated prefix (in LPD-2, LPD-5) c) Please review usage of this term and let us know if any updates are needed. We note RFC 8415 uses the hyphen for the "prefix-length" field. prefix-length (3 instances) vs. prefix length (2 instances) --> 11) <!-- [rfced] FYI, the original URL provided for [eRouter] is to the most recent version of this CableLabs specification, Version I22, which was published in May 2024, so we updated the reference as follows. Original: [eRouter] CableLabs, "IPv4 and IPv6 eRouter Specification Version I21", February 2022, <https://www.cablelabs.com/specifications/CM-SP-eRouter>. Current: [eRouter] CableLabs, "IPv4 and IPv6 eRouter Specification", Data- Over-Cable Service Interface Specifications, Version I22, May 2024, <https://www.cablelabs.com/specifications/CM-SP-eRouter>. Re: "in Section 8.5 of CableLabs IPv6 eRouter specification [eRouter]", we note that Section 8.5 has the same title in I21 and I122. However, if you prefer to reference Version I21, please let us know (and in that case, we recommend this URL: https://www.cablelabs.com/specifications/CM-SP-eRouter?v=I21). --> Thank you. RFC Editor/ar -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
