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

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

> On Jul 1, 2019, at 11:11 PM, Jen Linkova <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 7:04 PM Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker
> <[e-mail]> 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
> 
> Added.

Excellent Jen. All these text changes look good. Thanks for addressing my concerns.

Regards
Suresh