[Softwires] Further draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast
ianfarrer@gmx.com Wed, 13 June 2018 08:26 UTC
Return-Path: <ianfarrer@gmx.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 53304130E0E; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 01:26:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 9xLMu7KMNmn9; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 01:26:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C712B130E0F; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 01:25:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ians-mbp.lan ([80.159.240.8]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx001 [212.227.17.184]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MfmWy-1fq1dP3SnU-00NDGb; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:25:47 +0200
From: ianfarrer@gmx.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_AB958482-FEFB-45E4-8C3B-A3B9B5E2DE3C"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.3 \(3445.6.18\))
Message-Id: <ABA7621F-B3A1-4084-99BD-1C7062E9A695@gmx.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:25:45 +0200
Cc: Yong Cui <cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn>, Softwires-wg <softwires@ietf.org>
To: draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast <draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.6.18)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:d0CsgMBt7Oj+GxXpRCSWB0nEIYtY3HrDR3+QpMNRlN5tA+p9XH1 Oni+Jb+GQleu+KUOq6cvIP6LEGI1oereAzjSVyG7R+qqqvTbAh1ImanwoJDMpSn9cjDRg3H 0I1JaRzUg3A4aUJH4SflziyZ7SuLWHTKcesT2qBT3N/0zGuAaLDA9A7PmIXgHs3xOjW87Ig awBJ10uca5kjdHbM8a2Eg==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:/8/8v9VMaLc=:A1z7+bkblSYzmDFMGTZ3oP kpRji/Mw5ThcK1x4CCxPQJHLaKXy3aP4Eq1oy9FqRVDp7H4ePrEiNBLIyI69J4hrNGYd7DboA xhn4XyZUkOU2zCyAKw1HU823S1L9wPMF1YjLftkFdZNUSzDw9bV5GPlJpdCIDpFCNuHj60eQ4 k9F1ylEcsDy1Xkg0rlcyd2SxTxVi7SbqeKodWMlhzUv+5aSSfktsl/piCfR139KayMM1XtFTy SwKz9udaMYfFbtfYOGI64Jo26jRZcqepDW+yTswvWFdn2cS4IJDnAmKU5AwPRbezO5PRSDLaM Qs4t/pI+wdp6w5L/8cVc7QNrTm1etTAp9AFFOi0zU+K364ifOFklP3eTTsCsB2aYR/JQIIOf+ Tt5e6gzb0Lbo/pb1MOWGtdOrwjxVl3Wk5Rjp2FxLe8GG9i3r/kmi71FfJG6m3daBL587V2dld AxGprv6ZFhLRCVn93DiQrNAOjKjpSILF85nkISEROj9iLADkNlSA8kLghXLKWqwxM9iYJ3Mf7 5TXuvSaFblrR8h3+Z+HYDwjJ/f+WLKC3BWYomevXntOPyPs6kM6v/CDatbTtZ2SOtiP3m4+Oj U9koyEQ2B0cCLQ1rWsLkyzW0/e3x1ENb4G4Rlsk7I8cCWhGEogRyaLFLfQ8Pzo5jCvGBSrJVz xl6GGqD2dejOo1KA4jUtvCQ8HoDuBCYcZXVf+qLWYL2OX7VwnDWKo2D0wRE7q4rjXm1FYezhq AFay5+QmBD/hOOxHtoXnWlmVlN8UAIia+ey7yTFTlRtnYiqSku11PLAeUopOXlyz5HPd1SLiW 2qOCs+X
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/HBmVaFypIOAkisb4eXVcB0tK4LE>
Subject: [Softwires] Further draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 08:26:09 -0000
Hi Authors,
I’m currently in the process of doing the write up for the draft. Please can you tell me if there are there any implementations in existence?
Also, I have run v21 through ID-Nits. The important output is below. For the downref, to RFC4925, does this need to be a normative reference?
Please can you address these points and submit an updated version.
Thanks,
Ian
Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
== Unused Reference: 'RFC4291' is defined on line 677, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC4301' is defined on line 681, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC7371' is defined on line 732, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 4925