Re: Suresh Krishnan's Yes on draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming-08: (with COMMENT)

Jen Linkova <> Mon, 01 July 2019 15:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF45F1202AB; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 08:11:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BNAmRjyXajFD; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 08:11:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::744]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A3A81200FA; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 08:11:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id r6so11297638qkc.0; Mon, 01 Jul 2019 08:11:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=GGE4Ut6hyeyOeq49jDgswOVfsKbigmDV2QqQqyWPXp0=; b=Ha7hi0ENlUDHGdZ8M+OcC0c3dL7ZokeB866B81lIC8zSb7YO8t35PFSTbUMRRDSYjd whXf+TKrHP+Xu/vTH/vfKBpPKb6T/y9KJuddAWZ7AdkS/8lvTZOe6TYmfImnoNd6BEtL oL4u9LnEq+zuIVyw0OoLvTi1dbnhe6MKjAEexgA+a82IA3n8svlCyqwpXURhiZECrrrF dogjP0oXyL8CcpVB9JA8NNle50ZsfDYg4Ch2IvvpawhHed9WZDw0r99IWdaMkieyfvRi A10FqmQZEJ9drLWcXlNh4egJx80rDwHlHK6opnJ0HFAd2qukOz4a+jpDzPWQubu11aC1 QXug==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=GGE4Ut6hyeyOeq49jDgswOVfsKbigmDV2QqQqyWPXp0=; b=FyMVfyh+O6M6+KDTWcy3EfWXVGdM4OKNknC/PPe/4qdyhQ2raMbiBb0E7iw8yKyWeW Zb7MwZwf5AD4X0bBbxURCS+25hOaI0AmV5jpC/HqAY4kRQWvhJ79rmKdVitG6nNgg7eS v/1RiaNclqbLwvYEUs+bxul0bJoiedEToAfCPXN/kY9b0GhYxB1Lsv7QEYgzE/bXQ7QY NYOlB0EQ03vOM07h20fmdgsMEjKNLIEb2GS8DgUmFCD8EOYU4zo6yo/40RtUQa7mBZY7 ycdbrBz7sByssLZU4/hSy9xMOVSgPoJhafIIx2Hgd8mx5/+NurUUMpsUqClWmPCY53fl lKXQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUN1N1DK40AjtTPdsoaq8pUHGQMkl+BzhmUikLvpUtn+crVkd8y LBZA/MhPrpojsLR96DLYXIWX/MQh0hDJ2ZU+cvo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzUNqihHd+Xs236zBf5rubuBMd/nHJkmwt0CYZS+XCs7Diw07CRqt9buEnn4xGHr/yR7qHATPlhc9GACtH+3uM=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:505:: with SMTP id 5mr20987608qkf.277.1561993886478; Mon, 01 Jul 2019 08:11:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Jen Linkova <>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 01:11:15 +1000
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Suresh Krishnan's Yes on draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming-08: (with COMMENT)
To: Suresh Krishnan <>
Cc: The IESG <>, Ronald Bonica <>, rtgwg-chairs <>,, Routing WG <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2019 15:11:29 -0000

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 7:04 PM Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker
<>; wrote:
> * Section 3.3 Paragraph 2
> The destination address of H41 seems to be wrong. Shouldn't it be
> "D=2001:db8:0:b020::41" instead of "D=2001:db8:0:b010::41"?

Awesome, good catch, thanks a lot! It's a typo indeed, fixed!

> * Section 4 Page 22
> I think this text needs to be rephrased as a requirement rather than a two
> statements.
> "Any traffic that needs to exit the site will eventually hit a SADR-
>    capable router.  Once that traffic enters the SADR-capable domain,
>    then it will not leave that domain until it exits the site."

I've rephrased as

"As all SERs belong to the SADR domain any traffic that needs to exit

   the site will eventually hit a SADR-capable router.  To prevent
   routing loops involving SADR-capable and non-SADR-capable routers,
   traffic that enters the SADR-capable domain does not leave the domain
   until it exits the site.  Therefore all SADR-capable routers with the
   domain MUST be logically connected."

Is it better?

> * Section 5.2.1.
> Not sure what the reference to RFC8415 accomplishes in this contact. Is it just
> a pointer to DHCPv6? If so it needs to be earlier in the document. If there is
> a more relevant reason, I think the pointer needs to be more specific (e.g. a
> section in RFC8415).

I've moved RFC8415 reference to the first mention of DHCPv6 in the doc.

> * Section 7.3
> I think a reference to something like RFC6824 might be useful here


SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry