Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-fsc-softwire-dhcp4o6-saddr-opt-06.txt

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Thu, 17 November 2016 19:06 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F1B11294CA; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 11:06:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g2ZevpREZfrw; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 11:06:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x244.google.com (mail-qk0-x244.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02AF7128DF6; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 11:06:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x244.google.com with SMTP id x190so27743944qkb.0; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 11:06:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZVYs8+HyI20b0a2Vy8rkKQ+MqRbC0bvZ80Z4qDTfFPs=; b=Kj6Oo2lO90c7KH8EQz0XfHGkwfZCKjNu4dFtouEqW919eipmk/1sMUAkOCdDH90gs3 hetbjHeb6VhDc4s0i4mj4re/v3DS0shK+mqIB0tc9/a8rsVU7RwD4eyHq33J+1822Vgs K4+B/HLIX3yKTpaZttK6t64KXQ0KLvF1/6ihx8eOP9a6nf5YSSp9ehiHuT04K9cYGtjR D2mUS89g3pdlt4SsAvHg8GI6TThK4zGdY855BdXCdujebFgEvAQ/3sKcsIGeRL8MdEK3 TDt2C5bpXe5ORT1DCdf1RjJlDQJSODPb5XQ+Oo89Ok2vMsB75SMBUgRrcHp4U1dNLAuN 2q7g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZVYs8+HyI20b0a2Vy8rkKQ+MqRbC0bvZ80Z4qDTfFPs=; b=U7Mrz8aIKR46nn+he3TcOKY8rk7mwR6LgvyzlyeF+UFmta4beVVx5ef+JnTmcU/Ciu VCRc1SSxxRSVD9bQnajeWMs6Y5U733fH5VOElONkEPhOH2ZSoSO2Wv42bxW+WU1dmTbt flV205TBkm24HH9yUjoXoUlRig0FNLcuEjO9V1CVmgCg6JLP9ZpEGV61bpYQ3xA0DXXx qWF4DdKzmAqf+lXYQZ+k5pP4koWB1wqw46HIGuBAt/W8BHSeYhzViEir7xOPmWpgMUM3 pekvwjcZWxwD14Tj3ahCVKxQw0xti2I92hAO+sG2f6pULCOIL/NhCwza1WEnOtHhsmVI ESaQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC03jWug67oRoEj8/bYGlDdOlvEuXQiOBWpEmMmOjPS8YLb97QvcA+QoiTOHNV10/vy3hdmBQjre6NeLW2g==
X-Received: by 10.55.51.201 with SMTP id z192mr4934891qkz.311.1479409572023; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 11:06:12 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com
Received: by 10.237.53.155 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 11:06:11 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <6BCF488C-69FC-4965-8784-1331EE62AF67@gmx.com>
References: <6BCF488C-69FC-4965-8784-1331EE62AF67@gmx.com>
From: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 11:06:11 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: YxqYUBsV6y698LcfjXsfNUqkTHE
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqfb4An_172WKdh5FBDo5K7MfpAfhudZnBOMz1rKtN_jDQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Farrer <ianfarrer@gmx.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/G7i3dk5RfH9pT8GKBcL70WKmMhM>
Cc: softwires <softwires@ietf.org>, dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-fsc-softwire-dhcp4o6-saddr-opt-06.txt
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 19:06:14 -0000

At Wed, 16 Nov 2016 10:56:16 +0900,
Ian Farrer <ianfarrer@gmx.com> wrote:

> In advance of Friday’s presentation in (and hopefully re-homing to) DHC.
>
> This version is a small update, adding some text about the creation
> of a dedicated IPv6 address to use as a tunnel endpoint.

I've read it.  Overall I think it makes sense.  I have a few minor
comments:

- Section 6.1

   o  cipv6-prefix-hint: The IPv6 prefix indicating the preferred prefix
      for the client to bind the received IPv4 configuration to.

  Since the option diagram says "variable length", I assume it can be
  truncated if the prefix length is smaller than 121.  I'd suggest
  explicitly stating so, and I also think it's better to how much it
  should (must) be truncated.  I guess the intent is to truncate it
  to the number of bits specified in cipv6-hintlen, but the current
  description doesn't clearly say so, and it can be longer than that.
  Such "flexibility" doesn't necessarily lead to interoperability
  problems, but unless the flexibility is needed for some reason it
  would be better to be specific to avoid any troubles that come from
  different interpretation of different implementations.  You may also
  want to specify how the remaining redundant bits due to truncation
  (if any) should be filled (e.g., when the prefix length is 124, what
  the trailing 4 bits should be).  One common practice is to fill them
  with 0.  You may or may not want to follow it, or you may or may not
  want to be specific about this in the first place, but at least I'd
  suggest you considering what to do.

  On a related matter, you may also want to describe what the
  recipient should do for some invalid or awkward values in terms of
  validity of cipv6-hintlen and cipv6-prefix-hint.  There are some
  obviously invalid values:
  - cipv6-hintlen > 128
  - cipv6-hintlen is too large for the actual address length (e.g.
    cipv6-hintlen == 128 but cipv6-prefix-hint has only 8 bytes).
  And there are some cases that are not necessarily invalid but are
  awkward:
  - cipv6-hintlen is too short (e.g., cipv6-hintlen == 64 but
    cipv6-prefix-hint has 16 bytes)
  - non-0 "garbage" bits beyond the cipv6-hintlen-th bit

Editorial nits:

- Section 1: s/DHCPv4 over DHCPv4/DHCPv4 over DHCPv6/
   created softwires using DHCPv4 over DHCPv4 (DHCP 4o6), including

- Section 4.1: s/when when/when/

   only be used when when encapsulated within one of the softwire

--
JINMEI, Tatuya