Re: [dhcwg] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation-07: (with DISCUSS)

["Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[e-mail]>]

On 5/27/15, 11:25 PM, "Qi Sun" <[e-mail]> wrote:

Qi:

Hi!

>In the Section 2, we¹re trying to make it clear that this mechanism is
>not universally applicable. It¹s only suitable for
>³[I-D.ietf-softwire-lw4over6] and certain configurations of
>[I-D.ietf-softwire-map]², which are on Standard Track and are normative
>referenced in this document. We think that would sufficiently avoid
>potential mis-use of this mechanism.

This is the source of my concern.  The current text says this:

   The solution allows multiple hosts to be simultaneously allocated the
   same IP address.  As the IP address is no longer a unique identifier
   for a host, this extension is only suitable for specific
   architectures based on the Address plus Port model (A+P) [RFC6346]
   such as [I-D.ietf-softwire-lw4over6] and certain configurations of
   [I-D.ietf-softwire-map].


..which presents the two Standards Track documents as examples (³such as²)
of RFC6346-based architectures.  What you¹re saying above is different:
this extension is not for any RFC6346-based, but specifically for those
two documents.

I would suggest changing the text so it doesn¹t sound dependent on
RFC6346.  For example:

   The solution allows multiple hosts to be simultaneously allocated the
   same IP address.  As the IP address is no longer a unique identifier
   for a host, this extension is only suitable for specific
   architectures based on the Address plus Port model (A+P) [RFC6346].
   Specifically, this document presents a solution that applies to
[I-D.ietf-softwire-lw4over6]
   and certain configurations of [I-D.ietf-softwire-map].


I think it is also necessary to clarify which configurations of
[I-D.ietf-softwire-map] are addressed (or which are not ‹ whichever is
clearer/easier).


Thanks!

Alvaro.