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

" 杨术 " <> Sun, 02 June 2019 15:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74FF01200E0 for <>; Sun, 2 Jun 2019 08:30:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.542
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.542 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.979, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_NONELEMENT_30_40=0.001, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_XBL=0.375, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Mcjcvp3qcChF for <>; Sun, 2 Jun 2019 08:30:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFA791201DC for <>; Sun, 2 Jun 2019 08:30:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-QQ-GoodBg: 2
X-QQ-SSF: 00400000000000F0
X-QQ-FEAT: gLdUvvYrmnzIRWeLOn0B/KAdTqw4r2nWWd82CTk10PEsX6ci4vJU5GRUlJPfu rCgxTtZe9RKlLFLjPtZLBGmOpKAMNCI7sV2UqQy73I3g9qKAzHjEcJsa0wAjskoNha4vnan 1zzs3L8Ly9WT6UoCmtu5qKjguMWhr9+JHA1DCaa5RM73U0sO8XT/M3fgLlcQ0nbBuZTiiXW KnOxBmj9vwuKz8+snyDh6EWx5NKZnusWWcsgUjmeG4FmHdXAUvoVuenJ/C/119WOmuqOtTq rtHYG7DWoiGnp2w29P9sC0rSGHUI7CUQ1YLto8ZpIIrXzKa1lLj3XWW5J/iMdEb2C1cA==
X-QQ-mid: bizmailvip4t1559489440t531863
From: "=?utf-8?B?5p2o5pyv?=" <>
To: "=?utf-8?B?QWxpc3NhIENvb3Blcg==?=" <>, "=?utf-8?B?VGhlIElFU0c=?=" <>
Cc: "=?utf-8?B?c29mdHdpcmVz?=" <>, "=?utf-8?B?ZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1zb2Z0d2lyZS1tZXNoLW11bHRpY2FzdA==?=" <>, "=?utf-8?B?c29mdHdpcmUtY2hhaXJz?=" <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_5CF3EBA0_0A195E28_46EED09B"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2019 23:30:40 +0800
X-Priority: 3
Message-ID: <>
X-QQ-MIME: TCMime 1.0 by Tencent
X-Mailer: QQMail 2.x
X-QQ-Mailer: QQMail 2.x
Received: from (unknown []) by (ESMTP) with SMTP id ; Sun, 02 Jun 2019 23:30:41 +0800 (CST)
X-QQ-Bgrelay: 1
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast-23: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2019 15:30:58 -0000

Dear Alissa, 

Thank you for your helpful comment, we reply as following, 

> Fragmentation and tunnel configuration considerations are provided in [RFC4459]
> and [I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels].

Based on your comment, and comments from Joe, 

> However, it cites RFC 5565, which cites RFC4459. That's where
> the only trouble lies - 4459 is incorrect, as noted in
> draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels. I might suggest they continue to cite RFC
> 5565 but indicate that the requirements for tunneling are under current
> revision and cite draft-ietf-intarea-tunnel (at least informationally) too.

We changed the text to be "Fragmentation and tunnel configuration
considerations are provided in [RFC5565] and [I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels]."

Best Regards,

Shu Yang




This message may contain privileged and confidential information only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any use, distribution or reproduction of this message is prohibited. If you have received this message in error please notify the sender immediately. 

------------------ Original ------------------
From:  "Alissa Cooper"<>>;
Date:  Thu, Sep 27, 2018 07:25 AM
To:  "The IESG"<>>; 
Cc:  "softwires"<>>; "draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast"<>>; "softwire-chairs"<>>; 
Subject:  [Softwires] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast-23: (with COMMENT)


Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast-23: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


Building off of Mirja's comment and the Gen-ART review, I have a specific
suggestion for Sec. 7.3:

The specific requirements for
   fragmentation and tunnel configuration COULD be referred to in
   [I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels], which is under revision currently.

Fragmentation and tunnel configuration considerations are provided in [RFC4459]
and [I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels].

Softwires mailing list