Re: [Softwires] intdir Telechat Review requested: draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi Bernie, 

Good catches and suggestions. Thank you. 

Fixed those (and other minor nits) in -23. FWIW, a diff is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-23 

Cheers,
Med 

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Bernie Volz (volz) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Envoyé : mardi 14 mai 2019 03:21
> À : [e-mail]; [e-mail]; draft-ietf-softwire-map-
> [e-mail]
> Cc : [e-mail]
> Objet : RE: intdir Telechat Review requested: draft-ietf-softwire-map-
> radius
> 
> I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-softwire-map-
> radius-22. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
> Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat
> these comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF
> contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that
> have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/.
> 
> This draft looks pretty good but there are a few quickly fixed issues and
> a bunch of minor nits. But, otherwise the draft looks ready to move
> forward.
> 
> Issues:
> 
> Section 3.1.3.1
> 
> I think the following text is in error:
>    Defining multiple TLV-types achieves the same design goals as the
>    "Softwire46 Rule Flags" defined in Section 4.1 of [RFC7598].  Using
>    TLV-type set to 4 is equivalent to setting the F-flag in the
>    OPTION_S46_RULE S46 Rule Flags field.
> It should say (s/ 4 / 5 /):
>    Defining multiple TLV-types achieves the same design goals as the
>    "Softwire46 Rule Flags" defined in Section 4.1 of [RFC7598].  Using
>    TLV-type set to 5 is equivalent to setting the F-flag in the
>    OPTION_S46_RULE S46 Rule Flags field.
> (I assume that "setting the F-flag" means setting it to 1.)
> 
> I'm also not sure what the following means:
> 	     5 Forwarding Permitted Mapping Rule (may be used for
> 	        forwarding. Can also be a Basic Mapping Rule)
> Shouldn't this just be:
> 	     5 Forwarding Permitted Mapping Rule
> 
> FYI - The text in RFC7598 is:
>    o  F-flag: 1-bit field that specifies whether the rule is to be used
>       for forwarding (FMR).  If set, this rule is used as an FMR; if not
>       set, this rule is a BMR only and MUST NOT be used for forwarding.
>       Note: A BMR can also be used as an FMR for forwarding if the
>       F-flag is set.  The BMR is determined by a longest-prefix match of
>       the Rule IPv6 prefix against the End-user IPv6 prefix(es).
> 
> Section 5:
> The "CoA-Request" message is not mentioned in this table, but was
> mentioned in 3.1:
>       The Softwire46-Configuration Attribute MAY appear in a CoA-Request
>       packet.
> It may also be appropriate to include a table number/title?
> 
> 
> Minor Nits:
> 
> Section 3.1:
> 	s/ efer / refer /
> 
> Section 3.1.2:
> 	Remove the 0+ definition under Table 2 as it is not used and
> therefore not needed.
> 
> Section 3.2:
> 	s/ orderd / ordered /
> 	s/ attribute include one or / attributes includes one or /
> 	(use includes)
> 
> Section 3.3: Suggestion
> 	It may be more consistent and shorter to combine "MAY appear", "MAY
> contain" rules? For example:
> 
>       The Softwire46-Multicast Attribute MAY appear in an Access-Request,
>       Access-Accept, CoA-Request, and Accounting-Request packet.
> 
>       The Softwire46-Multicast Attribute MAY contain ASM-Prefix64 (see
>       Section 3.3.1), SSM-Prefix64 (see Section 3.3.2), and U-Prefix64
> (see
>       Section 3.3.3) attributes.
> 
> Section 4:
> 	In 4, s/Theses are/These are/
> 	In 5, s/CE send a/CE sends a/
> 
> Appendix A.7:
> 	The "TLV Field" column is a bit odd since these are really subfields
> from RFC8044.
> 	So, rename "TLV Subfield"? And, the fields are "Prefix-Length" and
> "Prefix" from
> 	the TLV attribute.
> 
> - Bernie
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2019 1:20 PM
> To: Bernie Volz (volz) <[e-mail]>; Carlos Bernardos
> <[e-mail]>
> Subject: intdir Telechat Review requested: draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius
> 
> 
> Telechat review of: draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius (no specific version)
> Deadline: 2019-05-15
> Requested by: Éric Vyncke
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-map-
> radius/reviewrequest/11924/login/
> 
> intdir Telechat Review requested: draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius
>