Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-trill-ia-appsubtlv

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Thu, 07 July 2016 13:20 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A5CC12D7B4; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 06:20:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.326
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 t84aBP0NGzSz; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 06:20:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F7F712D753; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 06:20:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC25A2CC9A; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 16:20:34 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WutVjdjKB1Qj; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 16:20:33 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ACE82CC45; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 16:20:33 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E23C5213-9022-407A-B98D-DC70D81527AF"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <d9b6589a-6c7c-f69b-6b2c-b1c12fa4b409@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 16:20:31 +0300
Message-Id: <054B66A3-BF0A-4BFD-AEE3-AB6CA49C0891@piuha.net>
References: <392967e6-b056-ef84-dbe4-5adf7469a641@alum.mit.edu> <CAF4+nEFNUZA6gGA0P3v-CjABYG8gUdW0mqRt13LzQ47-mgSG6A@mail.gmail.com> <3840099b-5151-5be6-c164-91ac8362ea57@alum.mit.edu> <CAF4+nEFF7w_5YW9Mcn-=NrjAz0eFXPH+mkbmm0KgBDhoJLu95Q@mail.gmail.com> <2cff626f-8f5e-19ce-704a-c0f1990c0569@alum.mit.edu> <CAF4+nEGn27KFLLg924Xv_fabZx2BXfqiCkROckRjYc0o3gEPXg@mail.gmail.com> <dcf97210-8468-6bed-224c-5b10f18fb31e@alum.mit.edu> <CAF4+nEFEgqKSpCPo_GwdboU2E+QRHUYjhz7wWnSjOzCa_hdVbg@mail.gmail.com> <d9b6589a-6c7c-f69b-6b2c-b1c12fa4b409@alum.mit.edu>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/3BpPK6RbFNKyJgQaCOViZvzh6Ho>
Cc: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-trill-ia-appsubtlv.all@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-trill-ia-appsubtlv
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2016 13:20:40 -0000

Thank you Paul for the in-depth review, and for the discussion, and thank you Donald for the edits.

At this point I think I’m ready to say “no-objection” for this document in tonight’s IESG telechat.

Jari

On 07 Jul 2016, at 01:02, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> On 7/6/16 5:18 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
>> Hi Paul,
>> 
>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>> Donald,
>>> 
>>> On 7/5/16 9:51 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Paul,
>>>> 
>>>> Version -09 has been uploaded with the intent that it resolve your
>>>> comments.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Looks good except for one thing:
>>> 
>>> Some of the new text in section 7 has me baffled:
>>> 
>>>   The following processes should be followed in interpreting sets of
>>>   AFN values in an IA APPsub-TLV to synthesize addresses. These apply
>>>   whether the AFN values came from sub-sub-TLVs or appeared within an
>>>   Address Set or came from both sources. In general, the processing is
>>>   applied separately to each Address Set as supplemented by any Fixed
>>>   Address sub-sub-TLVs that are present.
>>> ...
>>>   Typically, an OUI would be provided as a Fixed Address sub-sub-TLV
>>>   (see Section 3.2) using the OUI AFN but there is no prohibition
>>>   against one or more OUIs appearing in an Address Set.
>>> 
>>>   Each Address Set, after being supplemented by any Fixed Address sub-
>>>   sub-TLVs, is processed by combining each OUI in the Address Set with
>>>   each MAC/24 and each MAC/40 address in the address set.
>>> 
>>> I get it when an OUI comes as a Fixed Address. That value is combined with
>>> each MAC/24 and MAC/40 in the address set, creating a new column in the
>>> address set. But I have no idea what it means if an OUI appears in the
>>> address set. In that case there will be a whole column of them, with a
>>> distinct value in each row. Does each one combine with MAC/*s in *every*
>>> row, or only with the MAC/*s in the *same* row? That latter seems like the
>>> more sensible interpretation, but the intent isn't clear. Frankly this kind
>>> of usage seems more like nonsense.
>> 
>> I don't see any reason to make the processing more complex with
>> special cases just because some uses seem very unlikely.
> 
> I certainly agree. I expect I'm not understanding the text way you intend it to be understood.
> 
>>     You take the addresses from an Address Set and then you
>> supplement them from any Fixed Address sub-sub-TLVs that might be
>> present in the same IA APPsub-TLV. After that step, you have a set of
>> addresses and it no longer makes any difference where they came from.
>> You then perform certain processing on OUI, MAC/24, and MAC/40
>> addresses that are present, if any, to produce some number (possibly
>> zero) of 48 and/or 64 bit MAC addresses. You then perform a second
>> stage of processing using any IPv6/64 addresses, 48-bit MAC addresses,
>> and/or 64-bit addresses that are present, if any, to produce some
>> number (possibly zero) of IPv6 addresses.
> 
> I think my confusion is that I have been thinking of these things as two dimensional tables, so that the processing adds columns, while you are thinking of them as providing a list of sets, so that the rules are describing how to transform each set.
> 
> Additionally, because I was thinking of them as tables, I was thinking that if you put an OUI in the table (as a column) then the recipient ends up storing that, even though it isn't a useful thing to keep. I think I now get it that the recipient is probably simply processing each row and then storing away the parts that are interesting to it, so any uninteresting parts are discarded.
> 
> So feel free to leave things as-is if you believe it will be clear to those who care.
> 
> 	Thanks,
> 	Paul
> 
>>      Why bother making the above description more complex by
>> prohibiting OUIs in Address Sets? (or saying they are ignored in
>> Address Sets or the the entire Address Set with an OUI is ignored or
>> ..., which would probably be better to say since otherwise you would
>> want to say what to do about the (artificial in my opinion) "error"
>> condition of finding any OUI in an Address Set which implies it is in
>> the template for the Address Sets in that IA-APPsub-TLV.)
>> 
>>> But maybe it would make more sense to simply say that OUIs (and the other
>>> partial addresses) only make sense in special contexts such as the Fixed
>>> Address sub-sub-TLV.
>> 
>> Any OUI in an Address Set is, I admit, pretty odd. But I would expect
>> MAC/24 and the like to be in Address Sets. The idea is that you have,
>> for example, lots of end station physical Ethernet ports on links
>> attached to some RBridge, all from the same manufacturer with the same
>> OUI. So you stick that OUI in a Fixed Address sub-sub-TLV and then you
>> can save space by just putting a MAC/24 in the Address Set for each of
>> those ports in the IA APPsub-TLV originated by the RBridge.
>> 
>> The text already says that "typically" an OUI would be in a Fixed
>> Address sub-sub-TLV...
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Donald
>> ===============================
>> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
>> 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
>> d3e3e3@gmail.com
>> 
>>>        Thanks,
>>>        Paul
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Donald
>>>> ===============================
>>>> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
>>>> 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
>>>> d3e3e3@gmail.com
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 7/4/16 11:35 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi Paul,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I believe we are generally in agreement.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On the table in the IANA Considerations, I have read
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-15#section-1.1
>>>>>> and I can understand why you commented as you did. But, since all the
>>>>>> table entries were created by IANA actions, I still think the draft is
>>>>>> OK in having that table in the IANA Considerations Section. This is
>>>>>> not a case of including some technical specification in with the IANA
>>>>>> Considerations.  It's still all code points.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> OK. It is not a big deal.
>>>>> 
>>>>>        Thanks,
>>>>>        Paul
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Donald
>>>>>> ===============================
>>>>>> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
>>>>>> 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
>>>>>> d3e3e3@gmail.com
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 6:50 PM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Donald,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 7/4/16 5:26 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi Paul,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks for your comments. Sorry for the delay in response.
>>>>>>>> Please see below.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> No problem. I was just concerned that my review hadn't been received.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
>>>>>>>>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by
>>>>>>>>> the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like
>>>>>>>>> any other last call comments. For more information, please see the
>>>>>>>>> FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Document: draft-ietf-trill-ia-appsubtlv
>>>>>>>>> Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat
>>>>>>>>> Review Date: 2016-06-27
>>>>>>>>> IETF LC End Date: 2016-06-28
>>>>>>>>> IESG Telechat date: 2016-07-07
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Summary:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in
>>>>>>>>> the review.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> This is a well written document. I was generally able to follow it
>>>>>>>>> even though I know nothing about the subject.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Issues:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Major: 0
>>>>>>>>> Minor: 7
>>>>>>>>> Nits:  2
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> (1) MINOR: (Section 2)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> "Addr Sets End" is described as follows:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>   o  Addr Sets End: The unsigned integer offset of the byte, within
>>>>>>>>>      the IA APPsub-TLV value part, of the last byte of the last
>>>>>>>>>      Address Set. This will be the byte just before the first
>>>>>>>>>      sub-sub-TLV if any sub-sub-TLVs are present ...
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> But the remaining text of this section, and the examples, imply that
>>>>>>>>> this is really the length of the leading portion of this TLV ending
>>>>>>>>> with the last Address Set. The programmer in me says these differ by
>>>>>>>>> one, and that the implied definition is the reasonable one, while
>>>>>>>>> the action definition, and the name used to identify it, are wrong.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I expect it would be difficult at this point to rename this field,
>>>>>>>>> but at least the definition can be rewritten to be consistent with
>>>>>>>>> the intended usage.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Right. How about
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>   Addr Sets End: The unsigned integer byte number, within the IA
>>>>>>>>   APPsub-TLV value part, of the last byte of the last Address Set,
>>>>>>>>   where the first byte is numbered 1. This will be the number of the
>>>>>>>>   byte just before ...
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> OK. If you count starting from one. (I don't, but it is your draft.)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> (2) MINOR: (Section 5.1)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Normally I would expect this section to request IANA to assign new
>>>>>>>>> values from the AFN table for OUI...RBridge Port ID. However it is
>>>>>>>>> worded as "IANA has allocated". Perhaps this is because they have
>>>>>>>>> already been (pre)allocated. I have no problem with that if IANA is
>>>>>>>>> OK with it.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Yup, it say "IANA has allocated" because they are already allocated.
>>>>>>>> See
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers/address-family-numbers.xhtml
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> OK.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> But IMO the references to IPv4...64-bit MAC are gratuitous and
>>>>>>>>> inappropriate in an IANA Considerations section. If it is desired to
>>>>>>>>> include a list of "useful" AFN values then that belongs in some
>>>>>>>>> other portion of the document.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I disagree. It's "IANA Considerations", not "IANA Allocation Actions".
>>>>>>>> Someone looking for code points is likely look in the IANA
>>>>>>>> Considerations section.  All the values shown are from the same IANA
>>>>>>>> registry.  I can see no advantage to splitting this table between two
>>>>>>>> different parts of the draft.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> When I wrote this comment I had in mind the following that I recently
>>>>>>> read:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-15#section-1.1
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> (3) MINOR: (Section 5.1)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The "new" values here (OUI, MAC/24, MAC/40, IPv6/64) give "This
>>>>>>>>> document" as their reference. But anyone consulting the IANA
>>>>>>>>> registry and following it to this document would have difficulty
>>>>>>>>> finding any *definition* of these things.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Section 6 discusses some operational issues with them, but at best
>>>>>>>>> implies a definition. (RFC7042 might be considered a definition of
>>>>>>>>> OUI, though it doesn't seem to say how big it would be.)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I think what is needed are explicit definitions of all of these,
>>>>>>>>> including their widths. (In order to provide enough bits to complete
>>>>>>>>> a MAC/24 it must be at least 24 bits wide, but that would be bigger
>>>>>>>>> than needed for a MAC/40.  So I guess it must be at least 24 bits,
>>>>>>>>> and when used to expand a MAC/24 or MAC/40 an appropriate number of
>>>>>>>>> its high order bits are used.)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> It would be good for there to be a section, appearing in the TOC,
>>>>>>>>> for each of these so that someone coming here from the IANA registry
>>>>>>>>> will easily be able to find the definition.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> This is a good point. Better definitions of these AFN types and better
>>>>>>>> references, either to within this document by explicit pointers to a
>>>>>>>> section within another document or both, are good points. Probably
>>>>>>>> Section 6 should be expanded and sub-sections added to it...
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> WFM
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> (4) MINOR: (Section 5.2)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> This section defines a new registry with Expert Review as the
>>>>>>>>> procedure for approving new entries. What I don't see is any
>>>>>>>>> guidance to the expert on appropriate criteria to use to judge
>>>>>>>>> suitability of new entries. Without any guidance, relying on the
>>>>>>>>> whim of the expert can lead to variable, and perhaps biased,
>>>>>>>>> results.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> It would be good to give guidance on: what sorts of document
>>>>>>>>> reference are acceptable, what information needs to be included in
>>>>>>>>> the reference document, whether "special" values may be requested
>>>>>>>>> (versus just assignment in order requests are received), and the
>>>>>>>>> sorts of properties that are appropriate.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> OK. Some guidance can be added.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> (5) MINOR: (Section 6)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> This section talks about the handling of OUI and IPv6/64 when they
>>>>>>>>> appear in a Fixed Address sub-sub-TLV. It says nothing about their
>>>>>>>>> meaning if these appear elsewhere, such as in a Template. I presume
>>>>>>>>> this kind of usage is nonsense, but it would be better to explicitly
>>>>>>>>> state it.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> OK, the draft should explain their processing wherever they occur.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> (6) MINOR: (Section 6)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The description of IPv6/64 says:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>   For this purpose, an 48-bit MAC address is expanded to 64
>>>>>>>>>   bits as described in [RFC7042].
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> It wasn't entirely apparent to me what part of 7042 covers that. It
>>>>>>>>> would be helpful to provide the section where this aspect is
>>>>>>>>> specified. (After some study I guess that it is section 2.2.1.)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> OK.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> (7) MINOR: (Section A.2)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I believe that the values of both 'Length' and 'Address Sets End'
>>>>>>>>> are too small by 7 - presumably because they forgot to count the
>>>>>>>>> fixed fields. This also applies to the "alternative" using explict
>>>>>>>>> AFN encoding.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks for catching that there is an error here.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Length should be the size everything after the 2-byte length
>>>>>>>> field. That's
>>>>>>>>  7  fixed fields
>>>>>>>> 36  three address sets, each 12 bytes
>>>>>>>>  7  sub-sub-tlv one
>>>>>>>> 14  sub-sub-tlv two
>>>>>>>> for a total of 64 so the value is off by 10.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Address Sets End should be the above less the sub-sub-tlvs, so that
>>>>>>>> would be 43 and the value shown is also off by 10.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I guess I also got it wrong.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> But it was obvious to me that the examples weren't all done the same
>>>>>>> way.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> (8) NIT: (Section A.2)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Based on a very quick reading, ISTM that section 2.2.1 of 7042
>>>>>>>>> suggests that the IPv6 addresses being constructed this way should
>>>>>>>>> start with 0x02 rather than 0x20. But I'm far from sure I understand
>>>>>>>>> this correctly.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Ahhh, there is indeed an error here but it is in the bottom 64 bits,
>>>>>>>> which should be a Modified EUI-64 identifier, as described in Section
>>>>>>>> 2.2.1 of RFC 7042. Thus the top byte of the bottom 64 bits of the
>>>>>>>> resulting IPv6 addresses should be 0x02. The top byte of the entire
>>>>>>>> IPv6 128-bit address should be 0x20 as shown.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> OK. Like I said, I didn't really understand the details.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>        Thanks,
>>>>>>>        Paul
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> (9) NIT: (Section A.2)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> There seems to be a typo in the following:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>   The OUI would them be supplied
>>>>>>>>>   by a second Fixed Address sub-sub-TLV proving the OUI.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I think "proving" should be "providing".
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> OK.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Donald
>>>>>>>> ===============================
>>>>>>>> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
>>>>>>>> 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
>>>>>>>> d3e3e3@gmail.com
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art