Re: [Softwires] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast-23: (with COMMENT)

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Mon, 03 June 2019 05:33 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53B5B120121 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Jun 2019 22:33:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 YyJKe73Rbp0u for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Jun 2019 22:33:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from orange.com (mta240.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.66.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14D20120116 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Sun, 2 Jun 2019 22:33:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfedar01.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.2]) by opfedar21.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 45HNxp24fZz7w3W; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 07:33:18 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.29]) by opfedar01.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 45HNxp1Cd3zBrM1; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 07:33:18 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::e878:bd0:c89e:5b42]) by OPEXCAUBM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 07:33:17 +0200
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: =?utf-8?B?5p2o5pyv?= <yangshu@oudmon.com>
CC: softwires <softwires@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Softwires] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast-23: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHVGVhAJllxw80mT062qty17CPQVqaJaGPg
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2019 05:33:17 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA93A5F@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <153800942916.21537.881189317455678353.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <tencent_33FA451C7C820A3C04AF33B8@qq.com>
In-Reply-To: <tencent_33FA451C7C820A3C04AF33B8@qq.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.114.13.247]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA93A5FOPEXCAUBMA2corp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/4wyqA6uTmKhsMcWx6G2zjgOTEVY>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast-23: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/softwires/>
List-Post: <mailto:softwires@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2019 05:33:22 -0000

Hi Shu, all,

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med


De : Softwires [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de ??
Envoyé : dimanche 2 juin 2019 17:30
À : Benjamin Kaduk; The IESG
Cc : softwires; draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast; softwire-chairs
Objet : Re: [Softwires] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast-23: (with COMMENT)

Dear Benjamin,

Thank you for your helpful and detailed comments, we reply as following,




> Section 5.4



>    To achieve this, every AFBR MUST announce the address of one of its

>    E-IPv4 interfaces in the "v4" field alongside the corresponding

>    uPreifx64.  The announcement MUST be sent to the other AFBRs through

>    MBGP [RFC4760].  Every uPrefix46 that an AFBR announces MUST be

>    unique.  "uPrefix46" is an IPv6 prefix, and the distribution

>    mechanism is the same as the traditional mesh unicast scenario.



> I am not very familiar with this space, and just wanted to check that both

> "uPrefix46" and "uPrefix64" are defined things (as opposed to "uPrefix64"

> being a typo).



We have modified the typo.



[Med] Given that this document relies on RFC8114 to construct multicast prefixes (and other matters), I suggest to use the same terms as those defined in RFC8114:



   mPrefix64:  a dedicated multicast IPv6 prefix for constructing

      IPv4-embedded IPv6 multicast addresses. mPrefix64 can be of two

      types: ASM_mPrefix64 used in Any-Source Multicast (ASM) mode or

      SSM_mPrefix64 used in Source-Specific Multicast (SSM) mode

      [RFC4607<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4607>]7>].  The size of this prefix is /96.



         Note: "64" is used as an abbreviation for IPv6-IPv4

         interconnection.



   uPrefix64:  a dedicated IPv6 unicast prefix for constructing

      IPv4-embedded IPv6 unicast addresses [RFC6052<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6052>]2>].  This prefix may

      be either the Well-Known Prefix (i.e., 64:ff9b::/96) or a Network-

      Specific Prefix (NSP).





…



> Section 9



> "MUST [...] follow the requirements mentioned in

> [I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels]" seems like it needs a normative reference.

> "MUST [...] allow the use of encapsulation mechanisms mentioned in

> [RFC4925]" would seem to do the same.



We change these references to be normative.



[Med] I’m not sure this is the right approach. Do you really need draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels? IMHO, that section can be replaced with a sentence pointing to rfc5565#section-8.