Re: [mif] Comments on draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-id-01

Steven,

Thanks for the review. See my initial comments inline.

7/22/2015, 12:11 AM, Steven Barth kirjoitti:
> Hello everyone,
>
> below a few comments for the MPVD ID draft.
>
>
> 3 I'm unsure about the id-length field. It seems entirely redundant for e.g.
> DHCP(v6) purposes and even considering e.g. RAs it is redundant for half of
> the given id-types. Should this be type-specfic instead?

We need the length information for NDP case where the option carrying 
the ID has the length expressed in the units of 8. I do not like the 
idea of having different encodings based on the type. The "optimization" 
would be not be big enough to justivy that imho.

> 3 I'm unsure if cross references to the draft that in turn references this
> one are wise, also wrt. informative / normative reference sections.

Referencing will explain the context better. Informative reference 
ensures that the document won't be blocked if the two referenced 
documents are not ready yet..

>
>
> 3 id-type
> Encoding and / or allowed lengths are entirely unclear for most types you declare.
> Are they supposed to be strings, BE integers, ...? How big are they supposed to be?
> Shall I be able to use 16, 32 or maybe even 24bit numbers for representing the OID?

Will check the OID case. Most of the identifier formats have their 
"natural" encoding explained in their respective RFCs but having exact 
text here regarding coding would be good to avoid confussion. Thanks for 
pointing it.

>
> 0x04: RFC 4282 specifies the assignment of NAI Realms to be tied to domain names,
> so this type seems mostly redundant since you alreay have FQDN.

NAIs are different to FQDNs. Tieing NAIs to DNS administration is an 
"easy" way to guarantee they come from a managed nameespace. This is 
typical for example with AAA protocols.

>
> 0x06: This looks overly specific to me. Why not have a generic (unicast) prefix type,
> so people could also use their RIPE / ARIN / ... assigned UC addresses? E.g. prefix
> length followed by arbitrary length ipv6 prefix.

Good point. Will consider that.

>
> 4 What if I want to use this outside a configuration protocol?

You just do it. The PVD-ID is not explicitly tied to MPVD configuration 
protocols (two of those at the moment).

>
> 4 Undefined reference to "PVD container option"

What do you mean?

>
> In general 4 seems awkward / misplaced here, since you are defining an abstract identifier.

4 meaning option type 0x04?

- Jouni

>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Steven
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mif mailing list
> mif@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
>