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

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Tue, 14 May 2019 08:37 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 EABAD12023F; Tue, 14 May 2019 01:37:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 R_7Cmt1kzn7s; Tue, 14 May 2019 01:37:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from orange.com (mta136.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.70.36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF9C212023E; Tue, 14 May 2019 01:37:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfednr05.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.69]) by opfednr20.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 4539zG1ZJvz20vr; Tue, 14 May 2019 10:37:14 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.73]) by opfednr05.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 4539zG03LdzyQB; Tue, 14 May 2019 10:37:14 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::e878:bd0:c89e:5b42]) by OPEXCAUBM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Tue, 14 May 2019 10:37:13 +0200
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>, "int-ads@ietf.org" <int-ads@ietf.org>, "int-dir@ietf.org" <int-dir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius@ietf.org>
CC: "softwires@ietf.org" <softwires@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: intdir Telechat Review requested: draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius
Thread-Index: AQHU+fjZtWwHlo4VX06MHb4N50Y5/qZp6kAAgACBj/A=
Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 08:37:12 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA7D85A@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <155604000110.32429.11279582703707003716.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <BN8PR11MB3601B9BC50D9FC2A2E88065ECF080@BN8PR11MB3601.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BN8PR11MB3601B9BC50D9FC2A2E88065ECF080@BN8PR11MB3601.namprd11.prod.outlook.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: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/DHOybKu6nkPxByesaj9qelV9_Es>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] intdir Telechat Review requested: draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius
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: Tue, 14 May 2019 08:37:21 -0000

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:volz@cisco.com]
> Envoyé : mardi 14 mai 2019 03:21
> À : int-ads@ietf.org; int-dir@ietf.org; draft-ietf-softwire-map-
> radius@ietf.org
> Cc : softwires@ietf.org
> 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 <noreply@ietf.org>;
> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2019 1:20 PM
> To: Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com>;; Carlos Bernardos
> <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>;
> 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
>