IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update-03.txt

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Fri, 14 February 2014 06:59 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 071951A0136 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 22:59:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=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 JtzG9hgmIuym for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 22:59:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias92.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6B0E1A00E3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 22:59:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.4]) by omfedm11.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 80DD93B42B2; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 07:59:42 +0100 (CET)
Received: from PUEXCH11.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.27]) by omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 6728A2380AD; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 07:59:42 +0100 (CET)
Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.13]) by PUEXCH11.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.27]) with mapi; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 07:59:41 +0100
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 07:59:41 +0100
Subject: RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update-03.txt
Thread-Topic: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update-03.txt
Thread-Index: Ac8o9YXv3n/x9VQBTGeEnpNYfsAyyQAWlPGA
Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36F4D2529F3@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
References: <20140213085149.4433.65554.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36F4C31E952@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <CAJE_bqenDbtQ7R+05qqeJ7syfRCa9+QEUw4ojxV2khtnXBcyfw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJE_bqenDbtQ7R+05qqeJ7syfRCa9+QEUw4ojxV2khtnXBcyfw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: fr-FR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 6.0.3.2322014, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2013.11.20.60015
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/ckq5Uo0afmuafrr2GVwSfo2t59c
Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 06:59:47 -0000

Dear Tatuya,

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com [mailto:jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com] De la part
>de ????
>Envoyé : jeudi 13 février 2014 20:55
>À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
>Cc : ipv6@ietf.org
>Objet : Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update-03.txt
>
>At Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:59:02 +0100,
><mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:
>
>> This new version integrates the comments received during the WGLC. The
>changes are mainly editorial.
>>
>> Jouni/Tatuya can you please double check the new version and let us know
>if the modifs solve your concerns? Thank you in advance.
>
>This point in my original comment doesn't seem to be fully addressed:
>
>- In the NEW format of Section 4.2, this sentence may need to be
>  revisited:
>
>      In this case, the last 4
>      bits of the previously reserved field are interpreted as embedding
>      the RP interface ID, as specified in this memo.
>
>In 03, the corresponding part is
>
>   [..] When the
>   R-bit is set, the last 4 bits of the previously reserved field are
>   interpreted as embedding the RP interface ID, as specified in this memo.
>
>but it doesn't address my concern since the point is "the previously
>reserved" can be ambiguous.

[Med] But that sentence is almost the same as in RFC3956: 

"...the last 4
   bits of the previously reserved field are interpreted as embedding
   the RP interface ID, as specified in this memo. "

That text should be interpreted in the context of RFC3956. 

>
>I also noticed this (weak) suggestion wasn't adopted:
>
>: Ah, okay.  Maybe it's a distraction, but I'd consider adding a
>: "TERMINOLOGY" section or something, where we clarify the point (i.e.,
>: the draft generally follows RFC 5952 to represent IPv6 addresses
>: except in citation of already published documents).  But I'd leave it
>: to you.
>
>If ignoring it was your intent, that's fine.  I'm pointing it out just
>in case it's overlooked.
[Med] This comment was included: see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update-03#section-1  

   Textual representation of IPv6 addresses included in the RFC updates
   follows the recommendation in [RFC5952].

>
>--
>JINMEI, Tatuya

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email