[Int-dir] Int-Dir Review of draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-12

Zhen Cao <zhencao.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 12 December 2016 06:01 UTC

Return-Path: <zhencao.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FB421299C1; Sun, 11 Dec 2016 22:01:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 SI0lxL25GT3W; Sun, 11 Dec 2016 22:01:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua0-x22d.google.com (mail-ua0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5122A1299BD; Sun, 11 Dec 2016 22:01:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id 20so72646753uak.0; Sun, 11 Dec 2016 22:01:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=zgug1m+KcUnEkuyGNzNXA5/DxwAcmB591Cok/lvMHl0=; b=eo0ewAwDTecWsDYOg8Qgd39JSozVVKz4BQEedSffQW1ivJkyFMaf6jGFhf6RjYdP8x /V/OECaLf5492PSfyfH3Yw10qpK6LQ8KQhEk8YFBOk6dNyirliRc16+QCHJzCGh5Vokf 7e9DDa7NIjVg+h5jeD+liCf/2IN1rofVE9OMWO4ZtohXAcsQhWWUFJl2yR5if3FeQHS2 o7DyqlAPt9DzCvPhQhENlH9tZQsVdEGvasNdKUTWlPBpZugJdOO3mZtiYvFDkAy5oOQn DffQpJOH/AQito6CJf/T3HcWHXp7zUSuIJny9tpd+xg1UEPXMEG3THu4y/t/tD47OWQd ou9Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=zgug1m+KcUnEkuyGNzNXA5/DxwAcmB591Cok/lvMHl0=; b=WriTL/LALmVeLAeKBIwK4zOUBf70R9k2lL7LMSfZ8cWjWZg4rID9cm+zBhqm0P2dc2 Fr9kh25U3a6tOPuGIVI4ryxyJwSHedw3CzcGkA8x2ihTnuV4BpLWOpmqMc4GhyqIir/e GiFIfg6iQs/hniSIRs/fUyqEHr8h5KxHmRiUV3iLDoWXRAXHwqo1bIDujyayo4wTRULA TVNJr8DKvITjITTaYcnXooVPw1XAFzW9o+vy5IOV5UZa+QrPvZ+EuTyszYP7SHw+YUrM WD0n+mEh/iploWzb4gZd7KEiNh97sNVMbVk8t0Knm7LArlImltl6tHyJMGJZOe+yDkeo to+Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC02rq7qUJEFViTse1sckp/MtrKNZcIoXcQX+EheyRy79J/IKbrFOYgzIXDvh87cO+vVfh0Iu2fLWeP2E9A==
X-Received: by 10.159.41.194 with SMTP id s60mr72015158uas.3.1481522467279; Sun, 11 Dec 2016 22:01:07 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.159.49.23 with HTTP; Sun, 11 Dec 2016 22:01:06 -0800 (PST)
From: Zhen Cao <zhencao.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 14:01:06 +0800
Message-ID: <CAFxP68zBZ5+X8nLhtTOEcrA6c_kYhObd-8M_qQjA+Qw0gzuLQQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/Tl6O6uDxgHBPUDGzj2lTiaIg8uQ>
Cc: int-ads@ietf.org, int-dir@ietf.org
Subject: [Int-dir] Int-Dir Review of draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-12
X-BeenThere: int-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This list is for discussion between the members of the Internet Area directorate." <int-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-dir>, <mailto:int-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-dir>, <mailto:int-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 06:01:10 -0000

Hi, authors and editors,

I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for this draft. These
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area
Directors. Document editors and shepherds should treat these comments
just like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors
and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that have
been received. For more details of the INT directorate, see
<http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate.html>;.


I do not see any major reason to block the publication of this draft.
Below are two comments for discussion.

a) uPrefix64 and mPrefix64

I was a bit confused when I encounter the name suffix -64, because
they somehow imply only 64-bit long prefix could be used, while the
fact may be not true.  If '64' means an IPv6-IPv4 mapping, it may make
some sense.  So I highly encourage the editors to put some notes below
the items in the terminology section.


b)
6.2.  Multicast Data Forwarding

  When the mB4 receives an IPv6 multicast packet, it MUST check the
   group address and the source address.  If the IPv6 multicast group
   prefix is mPrefix64 and the IPv6 source prefix is uPrefix64, the mB4
   MUST decapsulate the IPv6 header and forward the IPv4 multicast
   packet through each relevant interface.  Otherwise, the mB4 MUST
   silently drop the packet.

comments: the mB4 not only needs to check the validity of mPrefix and
uPrefix, but also needs to check if there exists an associated
MLD/IGMP requests from that prefixes.  Only if there was an IGMP
report associted with this transaction, it will forward such multicast
packets.


Thanks for draft the document.

-zhen