Re: [Gen-art] [6lo] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-08
Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Wed, 24 February 2021 15:58 UTC
Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
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 633B93A1752; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 07:58:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=RDvoWiHh; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=Ap/5SB+Z
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 i67kPRezqOGM; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 07:58:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09C0E3A16E7; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 07:58:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0311AE8F; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 10:58:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 24 Feb 2021 10:58:16 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; s=fm2; bh=u64cIDI1UWwmp7WbD6tyd6+8bTe +2JfyMB/SbLzhEjA=; b=RDvoWiHhipSNDJpMy38ixHkfcDCpr6g+sqGPyp5yp3j mOgHyCyhN3ON5tDEdIfJSlchi4WoPYfgdHl3tqn5HnI6/TvOsQDZ2id9k7IffoU9 3parG6BDWo1DzmsJISWc6SuXnYfq35UGHhtruPdiptFijx7VUcOGua1dh2pm7s7A g9mRvJMJmvw24ohNYPuQyfpC181ixE8KR4zvkDJEIEvN+qYxZ7gj6iX8SGSIk/P9 uPY8cdK0RSKja8QBcDxZyGw4c0TPUrqYi6ngbHM1gVJWyCy7yM9/VDFS5SWSQH0L q0f8xcdj8JyT2/Mu5IVeVgU+5JHv/VMJX9bd1C3hZyw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=u64cID I1UWwmp7WbD6tyd6+8bTe+2JfyMB/SbLzhEjA=; b=Ap/5SB+ZNvAWzrJMfDJHoe UmC2PIpm42NAmw5CW8vJ87VrmvYlH/xhIF5OWWLOf62BIQG5EJh++GG+w0S2AJ8D HA/pzTgCjM6slbd8Ndu3n8SBI9orwqYLA6TOpezpIkd8zjnhnHR5ATxuiNUAOIj1 PQIcuL791U41xdClLjKaciapVM48qW153X7XHbY6G6VdjsJjy54kpYT6qpeSen8u hBiryiYM3xZfQydWwvMUyhty/de5muXmE3Av+Ct496Lx+dWvewDInsWn9DESGCkw jPzsI5GsOg4VTswRmbt6nZKkjxw8ndGxfxdXnNBBIJhITq8j6dMFwZEs/SN/9shA ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:lnc2YIkKtQcvHVM5Pw2AqKgR-4oZzONzFVKCc2s_IUSeEeXoGwSVdQ> <xme:lnc2YH2uzrvhBqIhArIc-jg5OxK5at8fSs39eKRWrCCgxWPxyj_ojJy7O9emX7wez WHe6E_V8fOcg6W3MQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrkeejgdekudcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpegtggfuhffrjgffkfhfvffosegrtdhmrehhtddvnecuhfhrohhmpeetlhhishhs rgcuvehoohhpvghruceorghlihhsshgrsegtohhophgvrhifrdhinheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepjeekudetkeegveektdetfefffefggfdtleejleekgeeltefhjeegtdfghfeg uedvnecuffhomhgrihhnpehivghtfhdrohhrghenucfkphepudejfedrfeekrdduudejrd ekgeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegr lhhishhsrgestghoohhpvghrfidrihhn
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:lnc2YGrxYOAlN21KbLOMmxhPHvoY4EhPb2osc2R6T4Gm3Xpk4Pip9Q> <xmx:lnc2YElyx2BlQLPV2eSp5bltA7tFCC-ywsq3Iry2a-OXzJDtPrtG8g> <xmx:lnc2YG0DKUtSst4qfrmQOR-5AtqxycYQpvcd65uNnyKE93W79jmOgQ> <xmx:l3c2YLyBEVrvWoahyuaYHpRL_EmXRUpoxfaVCVVnDKOGsZVJKa0v5g>
Received: from rtp-alcoop-nitro2.cisco.com (unknown [173.38.117.84]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id EF77B240067; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 10:58:13 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5B036407-0DE7-45CA-A534-C41A119E39AA"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
In-Reply-To: <4d07e6443cb2b1d0bd76033bb92872b0.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 10:58:13 -0500
Cc: Last Call <last-call@ietf.org>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh.all@ietf.org, 6lo@ietf.org
Message-Id: <8D46BEED-1F65-4B93-95AE-14B1D4E570F5@cooperw.in>
References: <160711595155.19658.8436612763808758937@ietfa.amsl.com> <4d07e6443cb2b1d0bd76033bb92872b0.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu>
To: Carles Gomez Montenegro <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu>, Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/IYCmeXLAcO1ILbwqXDYptgFqGeQ>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [6lo] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-08
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 15:58:20 -0000
Pete, thanks for your review. Carles, thanks for making the updates. I entered a No Objection ballot. Alissa > On Dec 8, 2020, at 3:37 AM, Carles Gomez Montenegro <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu> wrote: > > Hi Pete, > > Thanks a lot for your review of the draft! > > We just submitted -09, which aims at addressing the last round of review > comments, including yours: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-09 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-09> > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-09 <https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-09> > > Please find below our inline responses to your comments: > >> Reviewer: Pete Resnick >> Review result: Ready with Issues >> >> 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 >> >> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-08 >> Reviewer: Pete Resnick >> Review Date: 2020-12-04 >> IETF LC End Date: 2020-10-21 >> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat >> >> Summary: Looks good to me, with two items that seemed confusing enough >> that >> they should be addressed. >> >> Note that this review is being done well after the close of the Last Call. >> Since this is not yet scheduled for a telechat, the AD asked that I go >> ahead >> and complete the review anyway. >> >> Major issues: None >> >> Minor issues: >> >> 3.3.2, #4: >> >> Implementations of this specification MAY support >> the features described in sections 8.1 and 8.2 of RFC 6775, as >> updated by RFC 8505, unless some alternative ("substitute") from some >> other specification is supported by the implementation. >> >> This bit confused me. I think it was the "unless". Do you mean it MAY >> support >> the 6775/8505 features, or MAY support some substitute, or MAY support >> neither, >> or do you mean that it MUST support either the 6775/8505 features or MUST >> support some substitute? I think you want to rewrite this to make it clear >> which one you mean. > > Agreed. We modified the text as follows: > > NEW: > Implementations of this specification MUST either > support the features described in sections 8.1 and 8.2 of RFC 6775, > as updated by RFC 8505, or some alternative ("substitute") mechanism. > >> 3.3.3, last two paragraphs: >> >> When a 6LN transmits a packet, with a non-link-local source address >> that the 6LN has registered with EARO in the next-hop router for the >> indicated prefix, the source address MUST be fully elided if it is >> the latest address that the 6LN has registered for the indicated >> prefix (SAC=1, SAM=11). If the source non-link-local address is not >> the latest registered by the 6LN, then the 64 bits of the IID SHALL >> be fully carried in-line (SAC=1, SAM=01) or if the first 48 bits of >> the IID match with the latest address registered by the 6LN, then the >> last 16 bits of the IID SHALL be carried in-line (SAC=1, SAM=10). >> >> When a router transmits a packet to a neighboring 6LN, with a non- >> link-local destination address, the router MUST fully elide the >> destination IPv6 address if the destination address is the latest >> registered by the 6LN with EARO for the indicated context (DAC=1, >> DAM=11). If the destination address is a non-link-local address and >> not the latest registered, then the 6LN MUST either include the IID >> part fully in-line (DAM=01) or, if the first 48 bits of the IID match >> to the latest registered address, then elide those 48 bits (DAM=10). >> >> Both of these were a bit confusing to me. I think you want to reverse the >> order >> of the last two choices. Say something like (for the first paragraph), "If >> the >> source non-link-local address is not the latest registered by the 6LN and >> the >> first 48 bits match..., then the last 16 bits SHALL be carried in-line. >> Otherwise, if first 48 bits do not match, then the 64 bits shall be >> carried >> inline." Similarly for the second. As it is, it takes a while to figure >> out >> what it means. > > We modified the two paragraphs as per your suggestion. > >> Nits/editorial comments: Do fix the reference nits noted by the nits tool; >> they >> appear to be simple typos. > > Done! > > Cheers, > > Carles (on behalf of the authors) > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org <mailto:Gen-art@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>
- [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-6… Pete Resnick via Datatracker
- Re: [Gen-art] [6lo] Genart last call review of dr… Carles Gomez Montenegro
- Re: [Gen-art] [6lo] Genart last call review of dr… Alissa Cooper