Tim, This is a reminder that we await word from you regarding the questions below and this document's readiness for publication as an RFC. The files are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9818.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9818.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9818.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9818.xml (source) Diff files of all changes from the approved Internet-Draft: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9818-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9818-rfcdiff.html (side by side) This page shows the AUTH48 status of your document: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9818 Thank you. RFC Editor/ar > On Jul 3, 2025, at 5:51 PM, 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 > > On Jul 3, 2025, at 6:01 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > 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 -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
