RE: Comments on draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update-02
<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Mon, 10 February 2014 13:37 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 1B7931A06DA for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 05:37:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.549
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, 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 ylfzXP47qqXm for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 05:37:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias245.francetelecom.com [80.12.204.245]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C44D1A05FA for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 05:37:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omfeda07.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.200]) by omfeda14.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 3CC882AC6EA; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:37:18 +0100 (CET)
Received: from puexch91.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.48]) by omfeda07.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 0ABB7158059; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:37:18 +0100 (CET)
Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.13]) by puexch91.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.48]) with mapi; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:37:18 +0100
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>, IPv6 IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update@tools.ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:37:14 +0100
Subject: RE: Comments on draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update-02
Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update-02
Thread-Index: Ac8mQdIXX0mj9fyVQKK+xQ+3ehB2BgAIVPiA
Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36F4BFE361A@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
References: <DEED6C20-3216-4D29-B770-830846A28B77@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <DEED6C20-3216-4D29-B770-830846A28B77@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="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 6.0.3.2322014, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2013.11.19.63615
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: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 13:37:21 -0000
Hi Jouni, Thank you for the comments. Please see inline. Cheers, Med >-----Message d'origine----- >De : Jouni Korhonen [mailto:jouni.nospam@gmail.com] >Envoyé : lundi 10 février 2014 10:24 >À : IPv6 IPv6 List; draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch- >update@tools.ietf.org >Objet : Comments on draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update-02 > >Sorry being a bit late but I had a read of this document. > >** Some nits: > >s/[ADDRARCH]/[RFC4291] [Med] Will be fixed. Thanks. > >** While I agree this document is needed there is a general procedural >issue I have. This I-D patches three other RFCs, which over the time >may become an issue. I would rather see each document having their >own bis and RFC4291 update being the master on all of these updates. I >recon it might be awfully late for this, though. [Med] The point was raised in the mailing list (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg17811.html) and also during the f2f meeting (e.g., slide 4 of http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/88/slides/slides-88-6man-6.pdf). As no comment was raised during the meeting (http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/88/minutes/minutes-88-6man), we maintained the changes in the same document. > >** Section 4.1: > > NEW: > > | 8 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 8 | 64 | 32 | > +--------+----+----+--------+--------+----------------+----------+ > |11111111|flgs|scop|reserved| plen | network prefix | group ID | > +--------+----+----+--------+--------+----------------+----------+ > ^^^^^^^^ > >Shouldn't this also be align with other NEW formats? Others have a new set >of "flgs" + "rsvd" here. [Med] Agree. This point is also raised by Tatuya. Will be fixed. > >** In all proposed updated address formats we seem to have the following: > > | 8 | 4 | 4 | 4 |.. > +--------+----+----+----+----+--------+----------------+----------+ > |11111111|flgs|scop|flgs|.. | > +--------+----+----+----+----+--------+----------------+----------+ > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >I find this confusing having two distinct sets of "flgs". Why not >concatenate >that to one 12 bits field? Or at least name the latter "flgs" differently? [Med] We are considering using "Flag Fied 1" and "Flag Field 2". > >Either way current statements like in Section 4.2 > > +-+-+-+-+ > flgs is a set of four flags: |X|R|P|T| > +-+-+-+-+ > >are wrong, since there are now two sets of "flgs" that sum up to eight >flags. [Med] This will be clarified in the new version (i.e., this "flgs" will be renamed to "ff1"). Thanks. > > >Therefore I would propose for example the following format: > > | 8 | 12 | .. > +--------+----+----+----+----+--------+----------------+----------+ > |11111111|flgs_and_scop | .. | > +--------+----+----+----+----+--------+----------------+----------+ > >Then describe the "flgs_and_scop" as > > 11 7 3 0 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |X|R|P|T| scope |r|r|r|r| > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > >where "rrrr" are for future assignment as additional flag bits. > >Or alternatively: > > | 8 | 4 | 4 | 4 |.. > +--------+----+----+----+----+--------+----------------+----------+ > |11111111|flgs|scop|newf|.. | > +--------+----+----+----+----+--------+----------------+----------+ > >where "newf" are for future assignment as additional flag bits. [Med] The current approach we are discussing with Stig is to use ff1 and ff2. > > > >** Section 5 IANA Considerations: > > This document may require IANA updates. However, at this point it is > not clear exactly what these updates may be. > >I find this statement rather sloppy. At least the authors should >give a try listing possible impacts & updates. [Med] That text will be removed. > >- Jouni
- Comments on draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-u… Jouni Korhonen
- RE: Comments on draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-ar… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: Comments on draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-ar… Stig Venaas
- Re: Comments on draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-ar… Brian Haberman