Re: [Softwires] Review of draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-11

Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com> Tue, 10 January 2017 06:49 UTC

Return-Path: <jiangsheng@huawei.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 C010D1293E1; Mon, 9 Jan 2017 22:49:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.42
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.42 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-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 XCiyFuPg3vTJ; Mon, 9 Jan 2017 22:49:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 020D112896F; Mon, 9 Jan 2017 22:49:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DED39148; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 06:49:05 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML411-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.70) by lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.130) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 06:49:04 +0000
Received: from NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::a54a:89d2:c471:ff]) by nkgeml411-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.70]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 14:48:06 +0800
From: Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com>
To: "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, "ops-dir@ietf.org" <ops-dir@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Review of draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-11
Thread-Index: AQHSawzvqcalmk35pEKwTlsmH05WTKExRBHQ
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 06:47:54 +0000
Message-ID: <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B927CC7FA0F@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <148402050186.25046.4223816824977657511.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009DE2269@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009DE2269@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Accept-Language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.185.119]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020205.587483E1.0102, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 1365afae7a3711c1cdf0760fd44769d8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/ERvD9b9O2lPpgVxC7zU2F6Np_48>
Cc: "softwires@ietf.org" <softwires@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option.all@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Review of draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-11
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 10 Jan 2017 06:49:10 -0000

Hi, Med,

Thanks for reply. The content looks clear now. Reword into one sentence.

Such side effect conflicts with the recommendation documented in
    Section 6 of [RFC7051], in which 
                       ^^^^^^^
    to support the Well-Known DNS Name heuristic discovery-based method 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    for unicast-only environments is recommended.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Cheers,

Sheng

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
> [mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 2:44 PM
> To: Sheng Jiang; ops-dir@ietf.org
> Cc: softwires@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org;
> draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option.all@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Review of draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-11
> 
> Hi Sheng,
> 
> Thank you for the review.
> 
> Please see inline.
> 
> Cheers,
> Med
> 
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : Sheng Jiang [mailto:jiangsheng@huawei.com] Envoyé : mardi 10
> > janvier 2017 04:55 À : ops-dir@ietf.org Cc : softwires@ietf.org;
> > ietf@ietf.org; draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-
> > prefix-option.all@ietf.org Objet : Review of
> > draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-11
> >
> > Reviewer: Sheng Jiang
> > Review result: Has Nits
> >
> > Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standard
> > track RFC.
> >
> > Major issues:
> >
> > Minor issues:
> >
> > “the specification of a DHCPv6 option that could be used to discover
> >    unicast PREFIX64s in environments where multicast is not enabled.
> >    Such side effect conflicts with the recommendation documented in
> >    Section 6 of [RFC7051].”
> >
> > It is unclear how the Section 6 of RFC7051 relevant with the content
> > above. It would be necessary to quote particular content of RFC7051
> > and give necessary analysis.
> >
> 
> [Med] What about:
> 
> OLD:
> 
>    Note that it was tempting to define three distinct DHCPv6 options,
>    but that approach was not adopted because it has a side effect: the
>    specification of a DHCPv6 option that could be used to discover
>    unicast PREFIX64s in environments where multicast is not enabled.
>    Such side effect conflicts with the recommendation documented in
>    Section 6 of [RFC7051].
> 
> NEW:
>    Note that it was tempting to define three distinct DHCPv6 options,
>    but that approach was not adopted because it has a side effect: the
>    specification of a DHCPv6 option that could be used to discover
>    unicast PREFIX64s in environments where multicast is not enabled.
>    Such side effect conflicts with the recommendation documented in
>    Section 6 of [RFC7051]. As a reminder, that recommendation is to
> 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    to support the Well-Known DNS Name heuristic discovery-based method
> 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ^^
>    for unicast-only environments.
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Better?
> 
> > Nits:
> >
> > “the Pv4 multicast address is inserted in the last 32 bits of the
> > IPv4-embedded IPv6
> >    multicast address.”
> >
> > Pv4//IPv4
> [Med] Fixed.
>