Re: Review of draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec-02

Hi Christian, 

Thank you for the comments.  I'll look into them and I'm copying the
VRRP list for their feedback.  

Regarding the terminology, the draft explicitly states why we didn't use
"IP" though technically correct to mean "IPv4 or IPv6".  I personally am
less worried about IPvX being mistaken for IPX than I am about IP being
mistaken for IPv4 (and not IPv6).  How would you feel about s/IPvX/IPxZ/
? 

BTW, there are theads started on VRRP list to discuss Mark Handley's TSV
directorate review.

Regards,
Steve 
  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Vogt [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 07:50
> To: Jari Arkko
> Cc: Stephen Nadas
> Subject: Review of draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec-02
> 
> My review of draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec-02:
> 
> - The document uses the acronym "IPvX" in order to refer to 
> both/either
>    IP version.  Since IPvX might be confused with the more prevalent
>    acronym IPX for Novell's Internetwork Packet Exchange protocol, I
>    would replace the occurrences of IPvX with either "IPv4 or 
> IPv6", or
>    simply with "IP".
> 
> - In the figures illustrating sample configurations in 
> section 4, it is
>    not clear which IP address labels denote a host's own IP 
> address vs.
>    which denote the IP address of the router that a host is using.
>    Both is currently denoted "IPvX A" in the figure.  Suggest
>    distinguishing the two types of labels more clearly.
> 
> - The IESG should also consider Mark Handley's TSV directorate review;
>    see the IETF mailing list for this:
> 
>    http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg53562.html
> 
> Best regards,
> - Christian
> 
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
vrrp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp