[Softwires] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-24: (with COMMENT)

Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 05 June 2019 18:58 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius@ietf.org, Yong Cui <cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn>, Ian Farrer <ianfarrer@gmx.com>, softwire-chairs@ietf.org, ianfarrer@gmx.com, softwires@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Message-ID: <155976111447.22361.9963948282832233945.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 11:58:34 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/Fm85aVCivFbUNwkMrNn0JP5HEuU>
Subject: [Softwires] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-24: (with COMMENT)

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-24: 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 https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Editorial: In section 4 I would recommend to maybe move the points to consider
at the end to its own section, as these contain normative requirements and
could be overlooked if one skips over the example.

Also on this specifically:
“As specified in [RFC8415], Section 18.2.5, "Creation and
      Transmission of Rebind Messages", if the DHCPv6 server to which
      the DHCPv6 Renew message was sent at time T1 has not responded by
      time T2, the CE (DHCPv6 client) SHOULD enter the Rebind state and
      attempt to contact any available server.  In this situation, a
      secondary BNG receiving the DHCPv6 message MUST initiate a new
      Access-Request message towards the AAA server. “
If this is normatively specified in RFC8415, I recommend to not use normative
language here. However, I didn’t check the wording in RFC8415…

[Softwires] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on dra… Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker