Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-07 in Softwires WG

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <> Fri, 02 May 2014 18:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B88E1A091C; Fri, 2 May 2014 11:16:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.852
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.852 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MANGLED_NAIL=2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id voig9ljle7v6; Fri, 2 May 2014 11:16:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 218DC1A0911; Fri, 2 May 2014 11:16:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=5293; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1399054608; x=1400264208; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=oIamQMhUsnQ70Uep9c4MX8YOyyWcrdC3qJn56s02H7E=; b=Ff52rQnMRqztnEDz7YKa0/fY7zAjlu8dkzCP65H7H+/VrszcWH8Qapxp 6ysHB5VqPB0YqcP0Y4fOYsr8cJzi+rydpzCGAyTR75EdQFG00doeLpiZr YAluYCeOEXeQfJqgs4u51Fuf90TIhaZ5vEc9mTIpcQFVuQHQMdSyfLwdJ M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,973,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="40597418"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 02 May 2014 18:16:47 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s42IGlAY010764 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 2 May 2014 18:16:47 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 2 May 2014 13:16:46 -0500
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <>
To: dhcwg <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-07 in Softwires WG
Thread-Index: AQHPXkllgPQyeQLf/0K92SBfVkmnIJstotTw
Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 18:16:45 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Softwires-wg <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-07 in Softwires WG
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 18:16:51 -0000


I'm reviewing this document from the DHC perspective and not evaluating it with respect to Softwires.

>From an options definition/formatting perspective, I think this draft follows the draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines-17 recommendations.

There are some minor nits that could improve the clarity of the draft:

For example:

   o  S46_RULE-options: a variable field that may contain zero or more
      options that specify additional parameters for this S46 rule, e.g.
      a Port Parameter Option.

Says "e.g. a Port Parameter Option". Are there others (today)? Be nice to be explicit as to what can appear today (future documents can always add additional options).

And, in other places when options are referenced the option name is given (so perhaps replace with OPTION_S46_PORTPARAMS)? There are similar issues in other places in the draft.


   The OPTION_S46_PORTPARAMS option MUST be encapsulated in a
   OPTION_S46_RULE option or an OPTION_S46_V4V6BIND option.  It MUST NOT
   appear directly within a container option.

5.  Softwire 46 Container DHCPv6 Options

      | Option                | MAP-E | MAP-T | Lightweight 4over6 |
      | OPTION_S46_RULE       |   M   |   M   |        N/A         |
      | OPTION_S46_BR         |   M   |  N/A  |         M          |
      | OPTION_S46_PORTPARAMS |   O   |   O   |         O          |
      | OPTION_S46_DMR        |  N/A  |   M   |        N/A         |
      | OPTION_S46_V4V6BIND   |  N/A  |  N/A  |         O          |

             M - Mandatory, O - Optional, N/A - Not Applicable

                   Table 1: Option to Container Mappings

So, the last sentence before section 5 (It MUST NOT appear directly within a container Option). But section 5 calls the two options it is allowed in Container options? Perhaps just drop that sentence? Also, the "MUST be encapsulated" seems wrong (it is optional)? Well, it all depends what is meant by this sentence. I think it is trying to say "may only" or "can only"?

This table 1 should probably have an introduction / description? Perhaps it should also be moved to the end of section 5?

It is wise to have the Security Considerations reference an expired and dead document - [I-D.ietf-dhc-secure-dhcpv6]? It is Informative, but still ... Perhaps worth adding whatever material makes sense? It looks like many of Informative references are to older (expired) draft documents?

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg [] On Behalf Of Tomek Mrugalski
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 12:39 PM
To: dhcwg
Cc: Softwires-wg
Subject: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-07 in Softwires WG

Oops, that slipped under the radar for while.

I'd like to bring up to DHC attention a document that goes through WGLC in Softwires. This is a document that specifies provisioning mechanism for MAP, lw4over6 and possibly other IPv4/IPv6 transition technologies.
It defines 8 DHCPv6 options. Some of them are containers and there are many inter-option dependencies (including dependence on PD options), so it's not a straightforward doc.

Please post your DHCP-related comments to Softwires list with cc: to dhc. If you have MAP-, lw4over6- or other IPv4/IPv6 transition specific comments, please post them to Softwires only and not to DHC.

With my DHC co-chair hat off: I used to be a primary author of that draft around 1,5 years ago. Since then I gave up and didn't follow on the discussions (simply because of lack of time). While technically I'm still listed as a co-author, I can't make any comments on the quality or correctness of this draft.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Softwires] Working group last call for
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 00:37:35 -0400
From: Suresh Krishnan <>;
To: Softwires WG <>;
CC: Yong Cui <>;

Hi all,
  This message starts a two week softwire working group last call on advancing the draft about the DHCPv6 Options for configuration of Softwire Address and Port Mapped Clients as a Standards Track RFC. The authors believe that this version has addressed all the issues raised on the document. The latest version of the draft is available at

Substantive comments and statements of support/opposition for advancing this document should be directed to the mailing list. Editorial suggestions can be sent directly to the authors. This last call will conclude on April 21 2014.

Suresh & Yong

Softwires mailing list

dhcwg mailing list