Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-23

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Mon, 20 May 2019 07:19 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
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 1E6C3120139; Mon, 20 May 2019 00:19:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 97hjjZbeuWX6; Mon, 20 May 2019 00:19:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from orange.com (mta134.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.70.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19F1712013F; Mon, 20 May 2019 00:19:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfednr05.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.69]) by opfednr25.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 456qz21521zCsRm; Mon, 20 May 2019 09:19:42 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.48]) by opfednr05.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 456qz20LM4zyQW; Mon, 20 May 2019 09:19:42 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::e878:bd0:c89e:5b42]) by OPEXCAUBM32.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Mon, 20 May 2019 09:19:41 +0200
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>
CC: "softwires@ietf.org" <softwires@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius.all@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-23
Thread-Index: AQHVDQWXnF0fisMxnEW+IOcLgNtzrqZzneqw
Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 07:19:41 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA8986E@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <155813457177.26344.3484898211148454155@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <155813457177.26344.3484898211148454155@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.114.13.247]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/cz5KhdrCtikD6mBL5q78zFXg4bw>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-23
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: Mon, 20 May 2019 07:19:49 -0000

Hi Joel, 

Good points. 

All your technical comments were implemented in my local copy. You may track the changes at: 
https://github.com/boucadair/draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius/blob/master/wdiff%20draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-23.txt%20draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-23.pdf 

Thank you for the review.

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Joel Halpern via Datatracker [mailto:noreply@ietf.org]
> Envoyé : samedi 18 mai 2019 01:10
> À : gen-art@ietf.org
> Cc : softwires@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; draft-ietf-softwire-map-
> radius.all@ietf.org
> Objet : Genart last call review of draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-23
> 
> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
> Review result: Almost Ready
> 
> 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-softwire-map-radius-??
> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
> Review Date: 2019-05-17
> IETF LC End Date: 2019-05-31
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary:
> 
> Major issues:
>     Figure 1 of section 3.1.1 and section 3.1.1.3 do not match.   It
> appears
>     from later text that the problem is simple.  Figure 3.1.1 needs to
> include,
>     in the portion for the Softwire46-Lightweight-4over6 Attribute, the
> fact
>     that the Softwire46-BR attribute is permitted there.  Particularly
> since it
>     is required. Section 3.1.4.1 states that the IPv6 prefix is 128 bits.
> It
>     also points to RFC 8044 section 3.10.  Section 3.10 is quite clear
> that in
>     order to include the prefix length, the TLV may be longer that 128
> bits.
>     (Section 3.1.5.2 correctly uses the ipv6pref type.) Thus, it also
> appears
>     that the stated TLV length is wrong.
>      Section 3.1.4.2 states that the IPv4 prefix is 32 bits.  It also
> points to
>      RFC 8044 section 3.11.  Section 3.11 states that the TLV is 48 bits.
>      Thus, it also appears that the stated TLV length is wrong.
> 
> Minor issues:
>     I trust that the WG Chairs and document shepherd will work with the
> authors
>     to reduce the number of front page authors?  I looked in the shepherd
>     writeup to see if there was an explanation of the large number of
> authors,
>     but did not see one.
> 
>     Section 3.1 states that the Softwire46-Configuration Attribute may
> appear
>     in an Access Request message.  Unlike the later material on multicast,
>     there is no further explanation here of why it might appear, and how
> it
>     should be processed if it does appear.  It would seem sensible to
> include
>     this material.
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
>     In the description of the entries in table 2 (in section 3.1.2) should
> the
>     entry for "1" read "1 Mandatory, may occur only once" rather than
> simply
>     "Mandatory"?
>