Re: [Int-dir] Intdir last call partial review of draft-ietf-dots-server-discovery-11 Tue, 13 October 2020 06:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A87343A0E7E; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 23:29:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C-DyLaz_PcRP; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 23:29:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 112B13A0E7D; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 23:29:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown [xx.xx.xx.6]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 4C9Qct3JJqz8tlv; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 08:29:34 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=ORANGE001; t=1602570574; bh=U4CWAozpUgMophUDACFwJ+GM09B0DM78ENGb/pJu+tk=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=ZiSQisFOLEvXcCHlGjQQ/3CgquP+6zLz+dQZAePcHUmdXtvQcad11zgJDuQurwsIy SaC3FS1orhUKDmWbwTLZz3jEQBdQJL+SUNL/XNCTCPbOAh70VYw0WbWKKJMUpZoXXp 6YvGHeX9mbqCk4sNLvwPl/3MXhp/MQHVuNRPnVzHdPcBcIZqj5J6LPW0jOLbDs9H9e 05ReytJotKfP8y5aNN/KoI6oiI7eTfiWcrL984p95asDmhndoEqk1xXuNn8DgzKYoJ ouQ4OxS2YTYjkVprTPLNnraMbNNNR+KjGOG5d5G/YGlZeABcxKtzzLDUWy0pOBjcgw 4QLnsRjiS4p2A==
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.98]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 4C9Qct22Pgz1xpX; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 08:29:34 +0200 (CEST)
From: <>
To: Zhen Cao <>, "" <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: Intdir last call partial review of draft-ietf-dots-server-discovery-11
Thread-Index: AQHWoKeFIGPePct4Y0yQ8+mIUeZiuKmVDuOQ
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 06:29:33 +0000
Message-ID: <31047_1602570574_5F85494E_31047_384_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93303155F1B2@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Int-dir] Intdir last call partial review of draft-ietf-dots-server-discovery-11
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This list is for discussion between the members of the Internet Area directorate." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 06:29:38 -0000

Hi Zhen, 

Thank you for the review. 

Please see inline.


> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Zhen Cao via Datatracker []
> Envoyé : lundi 12 octobre 2020 16:54
> À :
> Cc :; last-
> Objet : Intdir last call partial review of draft-ietf-dots-server-
> discovery-11
> Review is partially done. Another assignment may be needed to
> complete it.
> Reviewer: Zhen Cao
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> Reviewer: Zhen Cao
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> Thanks the authors for the document.  DOTS server discovery is
> important to the functioning of the whole system.
> Important: I read Bernie's eary quick review (saying not a full one)
> for the 01
> version [*] and the comments had been addressed in 02 version.   And
> I think
> our AD @Eric needs to check if there is a need for further DHC
> doctor review.
>  (although I checked there were not much changed on the DHCP parts
> from r02 to
> r11) .
> [*]
> I think most of the other parts looks quite ready except:
> a) Section 5.1.2 on the configuration of the ipv4-mapped IPv6
> address.
> old:    Note, IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses (Section of
> [RFC4291])  are
> allowed to be included in this option.
> I do not know why this is particularly mentioned here given there
> are many types of IPv6 address. 

[Med] As you can read for example in or, these addresses are handled as IPv4 ones. This would allow to use DHCPv6 to communicate both IPv6 and IPv4 addresses to reach a dual-stack DOTS agent.    

 I think it 's better to remove this
> statement since there are many issues configuring IPv4-mapped
> address directly.  Some systems will disable (by default) support
> for internal  IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses.

[Med] The intent of the sentence you quoted is to avoid such behaviors and allow to use such addresses as per the RFCs listed above. 

> Some implementations of dual-stack do not allow IPv4-mapped IPv6
> addresses to be used for interoperability between IPv4 and IPv6
> applications.  [RFC4038].
> Such discussions do not have to be present here.
> b) the first sentence of the abstract: s/Districuted/Distributed.

[Med] Fixed. Thanks. 



Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.