Re: Review of draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids-03

Charlie Perkins <> Mon, 16 January 2017 05:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 562AD12941C; Sun, 15 Jan 2017 21:09:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.219
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key); domainkeys=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JQDLMDGGe4rd; Sun, 15 Jan 2017 21:09:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 931871293FF; Sun, 15 Jan 2017 21:09:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=dk12062016; t=1484543360; bh=hbSa6yKeBlDzCKt4tuINs7IOaR8JEZVM1uG7 9eZGd9g=; h=Received:Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Message-ID:Date: User-Agent:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; b=GUrtthf Zw0tAXaBgVZXVYaCfLBt1wPav/xiy7KEtHF37JCcmI6CBwcUyRkPS9ZN+xasWr5Hd3U DxSeUH0b+pc59gsi4OwWRJLip8jq4JJpBppi3Y2stntsEwPQR88tbMqV1NknRSZV8UW /GXC2IQ+CUJ24Qe9W2sw+tz9yjhBjPRqFylVptywW0VVXms8FaTDaMLqNsUJ+3ttiTm sXXioZAran8felMM+39SyTtXoS6fw6LotQNdwWnFdMEVZ6f3XkPyexdGp2d7i8y2qZ5 lPuCaGc3jgLi+XCVm3DHpGhnwrr0RYw/uY9RAnaE0fK/g8lyua4SpwMqMc7K6MGTo1w ==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk12062016;; b=fy81pY6bbZ9LK+jramqomGVz/gvTMcE+cRCyVEhWD/IMO0DCHpRO0KvgQlotJEbBcn0D18drXRxSVwDkvOAqSVtk/pQRaTPlJsnF7j/8m2lgimT5ZQb/GOb0hGbgiRPe7FeGhosfabFe5D724IQ0YkOsMY+1CH8H5otxi8nfJxUdQe3cpuuGE92c3c7/YF6N7iEo98/Sx1W0bhfHAzEHRQ1m67u88sxbIu86L3P2QQS2DR9XSz5cRzWye5N2vA2YmgkfbA9GKYze//CnXCk+z2Sq1nIprDjR3YM+Y+KRSQG5Q/5Vs4qd1X7RNl55pvelKV9JCGhoiXpvGh/1RlNeKQ==; h=Received:Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Message-ID:Date:User-Agent:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [] (helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <>) id 1cSzX9-0000wv-27; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 00:08:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Review of draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids-03
To: Tatuya Jinmei <>,
References: <>
From: Charlie Perkins <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2017 21:08:41 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956527bd5036cbc8ac761934719e9a4fcfb7fb9c3e3284d692c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 05:09:22 -0000

Hello Tatuya,

Thank you for the careful review.  Follow-up below:

On 1/6/2017 11:08 AM, Tatuya Jinmei wrote:
> - Section 4.1: I guess the MNID is generally supposed to be unique
> (at
>    least in the realm the ID is used), but not all IPv6 addresses are
>    guaranteed to be unique (a link-local or unspecified address is an
>    obvious example, an ULA may also be inappropriate depending on the
>    usage context).  It may be better to note the fact, and you may
> also
>    want to impose some restrictions on the type of address that can be
>    used as an MNID.

This is correct.  I will fashion some language as suggested.  I think it 
is appropriate to allow ULAs, but multicast and unspecified addresses 
seem clearly inappropriate, and I am i favor of disallowing link-local 
> - Section 4.5
>     2000, modulo 2^32.  Since the link-layer address can be of
> variable
>     length [RFC2464], the DUID-LLT is of variable length.
>    I don't understand why RFC2464 is referenced in this context.  This
>    RFC is about IPv6 over Ethernet, and assumes a fixed (6 bytes)
>    length of hardware address.

I don't quite know what to do about this.  I actually just copied this 
language from RFC 3315.  I think that the citation is also wrong in RFC 
3315, for the same reason as given here.  I could simply delete the 
reference to RFC 2464.

> - Section 4.9: s/is (GRAI)/(GRAI)/
>     The Global Returnable Asset Identifier is (GRAI) is defined by the

Fixed.  I also checked for other similar instances and did not find any.

Charlie P.