[Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe-04

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Mon, 22 August 2016 22:15 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDA9312D1A5 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Aug 2016 15:15:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.935
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.935 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4nLiCIANu8Gr for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Aug 2016 15:15:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resqmta-po-09v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-po-09v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe16:19:96:114:154:168]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A34F912D1A9 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Aug 2016 15:15:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resomta-po-13v.sys.comcast.net ([]) by resqmta-po-09v.sys.comcast.net with SMTP id bxTzbtn7YS0FEbxV5bglO1; Mon, 22 Aug 2016 22:15:23 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([]) by resomta-po-13v.sys.comcast.net with SMTP id bxV4bRnuoJtlbbxV4baAQg; Mon, 22 Aug 2016 22:15:23 +0000
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
To: draft-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe.all@ietf.org
Message-ID: <8ba8675c-02ea-3a4c-c6d7-ebc9e1fdf7ee@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 18:15:21 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfDN+RdlOVpK6fqbf1anQOVKZmIOQw/nTOHl7PaqhA2rSumDFMLTEVdtFRP1lGWV/XbqOyscQ3uTl5Eaghn90WSV7cSvjXL3/ypTDTGJn28vKHw0nj0rV EGun9V20w+IjFyd0mAhFatWZDxpin5R5VJEXDHI18UPqStU4ckOz3QiB+2sSGcPeEjYaCOvbtxKY/wvTfeG9w2qvfneek250nFQK3OFqOZP/D6qrH4mGf6QC 33ZzXxGrzHx9SrCn7rQQXw==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/NK8u-b_luhxr5GwBWJ7lqh04v18>
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe-04
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: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 22:15:25 -0000

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 wait for direction from your document
shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. For more
information, please see the FAQ at <​ 

Document: draft-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe-04
Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat
Review Date:
IETF LC End Date: 2016-08-25
IESG Telechat date: ?


This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the 


Major: 0
Minor: 2
Nits:  1

(1) MINOR: Section 1.2:

This defines the "S46 Priority Option". On first reading I didn't 
realize that this was intended to be a DHCPv6 option. On rereading, I 
found "This document describes a DHCPv6 based prioritisation method", 
which in retrospect does specify this.

I suggest a few changes to make this clearer to a first-time reader:

a) Mention it clearly in the abstract:

    ... this memo specifies a DHCPv6 option whereby ...

b) Change heading of section 1.2 to "S46 Priority DHCPv6 Option"

c) Change heading of section 1.4 to "DHCPv6 Server Behavior"

(2) MINOR: Section 1.3:

In the following:

    In the event that the client receives OPTION_V6_S46_PRIORITY with the
    following errors, it MUST be discarded:

    o  No s46-option-code field is included.
    o  Multiple s46-option-code fields with the same value are included.

This generates an obligation on the client to check whether a value is 
replicated in the list. It should still be possible to use the list in 
this case, so is it really important that the list be discarded rather 
than used?

And if the list is empty then following the procedures (and hence 
finding no match) will produce the same functional result as ignoring 
the option.

It seems like simply saying nothing about these "errors" would produce 
comparable results while being simpler.

3) NIT: Section 1.4:

Use of terminology "option foo" seems strangely informal here. I suggest 
something like:

    As a convenience to the reader, we mention here that the server
    will send a particular option code only if configured with specific
    values for that option code and if the client requested it.