RE: Review of draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-14

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Wed, 11 January 2017 06:33 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 34504129590; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 22:33:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.818
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.818 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 HTSRe3Rz67o0; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 22:33:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (mta136.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.70.36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28A87129474; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 22:33:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from opfednr06.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.70]) by opfednr22.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 3E036208F2; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 07:33:10 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.58]) by opfednr06.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 12DC01A0066; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 07:33:10 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILM33.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::3881:fc15:b4b2:9017%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 07:33:10 +0100
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: Jouni Korhonen <jounikor@gmail.com>, "ops-dir@ietf.org" <ops-dir@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Review of draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-14
Thread-Topic: Review of draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-14
Thread-Index: AQHSa3zGlXBKEDDzf0+XEHm6J0d0BKEyz9CA
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 06:33:09 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009DE2AFC@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <148407867682.22146.3578191940940921049.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <148407867682.22146.3578191940940921049.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.1]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/HHRvc0LzqgrR8GLGIUtB3vibjIs>
Cc: "softwires@ietf.org" <softwires@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast.all@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@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: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 06:33:13 -0000

Hi Jouni,

Thank you for the review. 

Please see inline. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Jouni Korhonen [mailto:jounikor@gmail.com]
> Envoyé : mardi 10 janvier 2017 21:05
> À : ops-dir@ietf.org
> Cc : softwires@ietf.org; draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-
> multicast.all@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
> Objet : Review of draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-14
> 
> Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
> Review result: Ready
> 
> I found no issues in this specification (not that I would be an expert
> in multicast).
> IDnits complain about one instance of lines with non-rfc3849-compliant
> IPv6 addresses. That should be verified whether it actually is an
> issue.

[Med] We are using the documentation prefixes when appropriate:

   IPv4 and IPv6 addresses used in this example are derived from the
   IPv4 and IPv6 blocks reserved for documentation, as per [RFC6676].
   The unicast IPv4 address of the above example is derived from the
   documentation address block defined in [RFC6890].

The instance idnit is complaining about is related to: 64:ff9b::/96. This one is not an issue.

> 
> On the operations side, I am happy with the current deployment
> considerations section content, and in general how some of the
> deployment/operational aspects have been laid out in the document.
> 
[Med] Thank you.