Re: [Softwires] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-23

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi Joel, 

Good points. 

All your technical comments were implemented in my local copy. You may track the changes at: 
https://github.com/boucadair/draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius/blob/master/wdiff%20draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-23.txt%20draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-23.pdf 

Thank you for the review.

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Joel Halpern via Datatracker [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Envoyé : samedi 18 mai 2019 01:10
> À : [e-mail]
> Cc : [e-mail]; [e-mail]; draft-ietf-softwire-map-
> [e-mail]
> Objet : Genart last call review of draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-23
> 
> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
> Review result: Almost Ready
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-??
> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
> Review Date: 2019-05-17
> IETF LC End Date: 2019-05-31
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary:
> 
> Major issues:
>     Figure 1 of section 3.1.1 and section 3.1.1.3 do not match.   It
> appears
>     from later text that the problem is simple.  Figure 3.1.1 needs to
> include,
>     in the portion for the Softwire46-Lightweight-4over6 Attribute, the
> fact
>     that the Softwire46-BR attribute is permitted there.  Particularly
> since it
>     is required. Section 3.1.4.1 states that the IPv6 prefix is 128 bits.
> It
>     also points to RFC 8044 section 3.10.  Section 3.10 is quite clear
> that in
>     order to include the prefix length, the TLV may be longer that 128
> bits.
>     (Section 3.1.5.2 correctly uses the ipv6pref type.) Thus, it also
> appears
>     that the stated TLV length is wrong.
>      Section 3.1.4.2 states that the IPv4 prefix is 32 bits.  It also
> points to
>      RFC 8044 section 3.11.  Section 3.11 states that the TLV is 48 bits.
>      Thus, it also appears that the stated TLV length is wrong.
> 
> Minor issues:
>     I trust that the WG Chairs and document shepherd will work with the
> authors
>     to reduce the number of front page authors?  I looked in the shepherd
>     writeup to see if there was an explanation of the large number of
> authors,
>     but did not see one.
> 
>     Section 3.1 states that the Softwire46-Configuration Attribute may
> appear
>     in an Access Request message.  Unlike the later material on multicast,
>     there is no further explanation here of why it might appear, and how
> it
>     should be processed if it does appear.  It would seem sensible to
> include
>     this material.
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
>     In the description of the entries in table 2 (in section 3.1.2) should
> the
>     entry for "1" read "1 Mandatory, may occur only once" rather than
> simply
>     "Mandatory"?
>