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

Roni Even <> Mon, 09 January 2017 06:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97AD7129B1D; Sun, 8 Jan 2017 22:52:22 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Roni Even <>
Subject: Review of draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-11
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.40.3
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2017 22:52:22 -0800
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2017 06:52:22 -0000

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
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.
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.

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