Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-11

Thanks Med,
No more comments
Roni

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
> [mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com]
> Sent: יום ב 09 ינואר 2017 14:24
> To: Roni Even; Roni Even; gen-art@ietf.org
> Cc: softwires@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-
> option.all@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-
> 11
> 
> Re-,
> 
> Please see inline.
> 
> Cheers,
> Med
> 
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : Roni Even [mailto:roni.even@huawei.com] Envoyé : lundi 9 janvier
> > 2017 11:36 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; Roni Even; gen-
> art@ietf.org
> > Cc : softwires@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-
> > prefix-option.all@ietf.org Objet : RE: [Gen-art] Review of
> > draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-
> > option-11
> >
> > Hi Med,
> > Inline
> > Roni
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gen-art [mailto:gen-art-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> > mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
> > Sent: יום ב 09 ינואר 2017 09:43
> > To: Roni Even; gen-art@ietf.org
> > Cc: softwires@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-
> > prefix-option.all@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-
> > option-11
> >
> > Dear Roni,
> >
> > Thank you for the review.
> >
> > Please see inline.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Med
> >
> > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > De : Roni Even [mailto:roni.even@mail01.huawei.com]
> > > Envoyé : lundi 9 janvier 2017 07:52
> > > À : gen-art@ietf.org
> > > Cc : softwires@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org;
> > > draft-ietf-softwire-multicast- prefix-option.all@ietf.org Objet :
> > > Review of
> > > draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-11
> > >
> > > Reviewer: Roni Even
> > > Review result: Almost Ready
> > >
> > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> > > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
> > > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call
> > > comments you may receive.
> > > Document:  draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-11
> > > Reviewer: Roni Even
> > > Review Date:2017-1-9
> > > IETF LC End Date: 2017–1-12
> > > IESG Telechat date:
> > >
> > > Summary: This draft is almost  ready for publication as a standard
> > > track RFC.
> > >
> > >
> > > Major issues:
> > >
> > > Minor issues:
> > >
> > > 1.	In section 4 first paragraph say “DHCP servers supporting
> > > OPTION_V6_PREFIX64 should be configured with U_PREFIX64 and at
> least
> > > one multicast PREFIX64 (i.e., ASM_PREFIX64 and/or SSM_PREFIX64).”
> > > From the rest of the section I understand that for SSM deployments
> > > both
> > > U_PREFIX64 and SSM_PREFIX64 MUST be configured.
> >
> > [Med] Yes. If you prefer, I can change the text to make this more clear:
> >
> > OLD:
> >   DHCP servers supporting OPTION_V6_PREFIX64 should be configured with
> >    U_PREFIX64 and at least one multicast PREFIX64 (i.e., ASM_PREFIX64
> >    and/or SSM_PREFIX64).
> >
> > NEW:
> >    DHCP servers supporting OPTION_V6_PREFIX64 must be configured with
> >    ASM_PREFIX64 or SSM_PREFIX64, and may be configured with both.
> >    U_PREFIX64 must also be configured when SSM_PREFIX64 is provided.
> >    U_PREFIX64 may be configured when only ASM_PREFIX64 is provided.
> >
> > Roni: OK
> >
> 
> [Med] I implemented the change in my local copy.
> 
> > > What is the reason for “should” in the first paragraph? Are there
> > > cases where ASM_PREFIX64 or ASM_PREFIX64 and SSM_PREFIX64 are
> > > specified and there is no need to specify U_PREFIX64, maybe these
> > > cases should be described.
> > >
> >
> > [Med] The presence of the unicast address is mandatory for the SSM
> > case because it is required to form an IPv6 address from an IPv4
> > address to subscribe to a multicast content from a particular source.
> > For the ASM case, the configuration of the U_PREFIX64 is not mandatory
> > in the following cases: (1) a local mapping algorithm is enabled by
> > the function that grafts the IPv4 multicast host side with an IPv6
> > multicast tree or
> > (2) in deployments that make use of the WKP (64:ff9b::/96, RFC6052).
> >
> > I can add this NEW text:
> >
> >    Note that U_PREFIX64 is not mandatory for the ASM case if, for
> >    example, a local address mapping algorithm is supported or the Well-
> >    Know Prefix (64:ff9b::/96) is used.
> >
> > Roni:OK
> >
> 
> [Med] I made the change in my local copy.
> 
> > >
> > > Nits/editorial comments:
> > > 1.	RFC2119 keywords in the document are sometime capitalized and
> > > sometime not. I think it will be good to have consistency and if
> > > they do not intend to have RFC2119 semantics some other words should
> > > be used
> > >
> >
> > [Med] I guess you are referring to Section 4. We are not using
> > normative language on purpose because of previous comments we
> received
> > from some DHC experts (T. Lemon). The use of normative text for the
> > server behavior would mean that we are updating RFC 3315, which we do
> > not want to do. This is why we are defining this section as configuration
> guidelines.
> >
> > Roni: maybe add to section 4 text saying that this section is not
> > normative and serves as guidelines, since this is a standard track
> > document and usage of RFC2119 keywords may be confusing
> >
> >
> [Med] Works for me. I added this NEW text to Section 4:
> 
> "This section is not normative but specifies a set of configuration guidelines."
> 
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gen-art mailing list
> > Gen-art@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art