IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras-04

Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com> Mon, 18 June 2018 10:57 UTC

Return-Path: <jiangsheng@huawei.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 EEB89130EB7; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 03:57:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 LtyizIu9MGNz; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 03:57:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6E01130EA5; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 03:57:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LHREML710-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 862F9AA275CC0; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 11:57:04 +0100 (IST)
Received: from NKGEML414-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.75) by LHREML710-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.382.0; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 11:57:06 +0100
Received: from NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::a54a:89d2:c471:ff]) by nkgeml414-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0382.000; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 18:57:02 +0800
From: Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com>
To: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
CC: "ops-dir@ietf.org" <ops-dir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras.all@ietf.org>, V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>, IETF Rinse Repeat <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras-04
Thread-Topic: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras-04
Thread-Index: AQHUBuEKU6siIzMgYUKz9dlT4mI2ZaRl02Tg
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 10:57:01 +0000
Message-ID: <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B92900E6CF1@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <152689102802.23045.6041887435563645658@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAFU7BARE6ud0io_5SSA670z6B=cqHJ3=SEqYHd+r7pzArTbGkg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFU7BARE6ud0io_5SSA670z6B=cqHJ3=SEqYHd+r7pzArTbGkg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.45.187.124]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/tqgW6nATs_8Y_qrkGvD3afkV-18>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 10:57:13 -0000

Hi, Jen,

05 version looks fine for me. Your explanation are reasonable. Thanks for addressing my comments.

Regards,

Sheng

-----Original Message-----
From: Jen Linkova [mailto:furry13@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2018 4:47 PM
To: Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com>
Cc: ops-dir@ietf.org; draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras.all@ietf.org; V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>; IETF Rinse Repeat <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras-04

Hi Sheng,

On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 6:23 PM, Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com> wrote:
> Review result: Has Issues
> Minor issue: There are many unused reference. However, they are not 
> simple Nits and cannot be fixed by deleting them from reference list. 
> Many of these unused reference are really relevant and should have 
> some content to describe the relationship with the mechanism or 
> scenario of the document, such as RFC6296 NAT66, etc.

I've checked all unused references and added most of them to the draft text. However some of them had to be removed as they are more relevant to the general multihoming discussion and other potential solutions to that problem, which are discussed in the https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming
(see Section 7 of that doc). Using SLAAC vs NAT etc is discussed in details there.

As draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras is more about applying the approach defined in draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming to the particular subset of use cases, it seems unnecessary to have the same text in both documents, especially as draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras explicitly refers to draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming for details explanation why the particular mechanism is proposed.

Please let me know if the updated version does not address your concerns!

Thank you!

--
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email