RE: Review of draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-11

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Tue, 10 January 2017 07:17 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51DFD129B00; Mon, 9 Jan 2017 23:17:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.118
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.118 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 M-oB8ly9XKAR; Mon, 9 Jan 2017 23:17:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (mta240.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.66.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9244E129B01; Mon, 9 Jan 2017 23:17:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from opfedar05.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.7]) by opfedar24.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id B8C4FC0ACE; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 08:17:20 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.19]) by opfedar05.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 980E96006D; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 08:17:20 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILM44.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::b08d:5b75:e92c:a45f%18]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 08:17:20 +0100
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com>, "ops-dir@ietf.org" <ops-dir@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Review of draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-11
Thread-Topic: Review of draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-11
Thread-Index: AQHSawzvqcalmk35pEKwTlsmH05WTKExRBHQgAAIvdA=
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 07:17:19 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009DE22C0@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <148402050186.25046.4223816824977657511.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009DE2269@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B927CC7FA0F@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B927CC7FA0F@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.5]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/8De4aiLH-AKqCNNUoCM63K-ZnCo>
Cc: "softwires@ietf.org" <softwires@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option.all@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 07:17:24 -0000

Re-,

OK, thanks. 

If you prefer one sentence, then I can reword it to: 

   Such side effect conflicts with the recommendation to support the
   Well-Known DNS Name heuristic discovery-based method for unicast-only
   environments (Section 6 of [RFC7051]).

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Sheng Jiang [mailto:jiangsheng@huawei.com]
> Envoyé : mardi 10 janvier 2017 07:48
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; ops-dir@ietf.org
> Cc : softwires@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-
> prefix-option.all@ietf.org
> Objet : RE: Review of draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-11
> 
> Hi, Med,
> 
> Thanks for reply. The content looks clear now. Reword into one sentence.
> 
> Such side effect conflicts with the recommendation documented in
>     Section 6 of [RFC7051], in which
>                        ^^^^^^^
>     to support the Well-Known DNS Name heuristic discovery-based method
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>     for unicast-only environments is recommended.
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Sheng
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
> > [mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 2:44 PM
> > To: Sheng Jiang; ops-dir@ietf.org
> > Cc: softwires@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org;
> > draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option.all@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: Review of draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-11
> >
> > Hi Sheng,
> >
> > Thank you for the review.
> >
> > Please see inline.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Med
> >
> > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > De : Sheng Jiang [mailto:jiangsheng@huawei.com] Envoyé : mardi 10
> > > janvier 2017 04:55 À : ops-dir@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: Sheng Jiang
> > > Review result: Has Nits
> > >
> > > Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standard
> > > track RFC.
> > >
> > > Major issues:
> > >
> > > Minor issues:
> > >
> > > “the specification of a DHCPv6 option that could be used to discover
> > >    unicast PREFIX64s in environments where multicast is not enabled.
> > >    Such side effect conflicts with the recommendation documented in
> > >    Section 6 of [RFC7051].”
> > >
> > > It is unclear how the Section 6 of RFC7051 relevant with the content
> > > above. It would be necessary to quote particular content of RFC7051
> > > and give necessary analysis.
> > >
> >
> > [Med] What about:
> >
> > OLD:
> >
> >    Note that it was tempting to define three distinct DHCPv6 options,
> >    but that approach was not adopted because it has a side effect: the
> >    specification of a DHCPv6 option that could be used to discover
> >    unicast PREFIX64s in environments where multicast is not enabled.
> >    Such side effect conflicts with the recommendation documented in
> >    Section 6 of [RFC7051].
> >
> > NEW:
> >    Note that it was tempting to define three distinct DHCPv6 options,
> >    but that approach was not adopted because it has a side effect: the
> >    specification of a DHCPv6 option that could be used to discover
> >    unicast PREFIX64s in environments where multicast is not enabled.
> >    Such side effect conflicts with the recommendation documented in
> >    Section 6 of [RFC7051]. As a reminder, that recommendation is to
> >
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >    to support the Well-Known DNS Name heuristic discovery-based method
> >
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > ^^
> >    for unicast-only environments.
> >    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > Better?
> >
> > > Nits:
> > >
> > > “the Pv4 multicast address is inserted in the last 32 bits of the
> > > IPv4-embedded IPv6
> > >    multicast address.”
> > >
> > > Pv4//IPv4
> > [Med] Fixed.
> >