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

Re-,

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Roni Even [mailto:roni.even@huawei.com]
> Envoyé : lundi 9 janvier 2017 11:36
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; Roni Even; gen-art@ietf.org
> Cc : softwires@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-
> prefix-option.all@ietf.org
> Objet : RE: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-
> option-11
> 
> Hi Med,
> Inline
> Roni
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gen-art [mailto:gen-art-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
> Sent: יום ב 09 ינואר 2017 09:43
> To: Roni Even; gen-art@ietf.org
> Cc: softwires@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-
> prefix-option.all@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-
> option-11
> 
> Dear Roni,
> 
> Thank you for the review.
> 
> Please see inline.
> 
> Cheers,
> Med
> 
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : Roni Even [mailto:roni.even@mail01.huawei.com]
> > Envoyé : lundi 9 janvier 2017 07:52
> > À : gen-art@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: Roni Even
> > Review result: Almost Ready
> >
> > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
> > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> > you may receive.
> > Document:  draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-11
> > Reviewer: Roni Even
> > Review Date:2017-1-9
> > IETF LC End Date: 2017–1-12
> > IESG Telechat date:
> >
> > Summary: This draft is almost  ready for publication as a standard
> > track RFC.
> >
> >
> > Major issues:
> >
> > Minor issues:
> >
> > 1.	In section 4 first paragraph say “DHCP servers supporting
> > OPTION_V6_PREFIX64 should be configured with U_PREFIX64 and at least
> > one multicast PREFIX64 (i.e., ASM_PREFIX64 and/or SSM_PREFIX64).” From
> > the rest of the section I understand that for SSM deployments both
> > U_PREFIX64 and SSM_PREFIX64 MUST be configured.
> 
> [Med] Yes. If you prefer, I can change the text to make this more clear:
> 
> OLD:
>   DHCP servers supporting OPTION_V6_PREFIX64 should be configured with
>    U_PREFIX64 and at least one multicast PREFIX64 (i.e., ASM_PREFIX64
>    and/or SSM_PREFIX64).
> 
> NEW:
>    DHCP servers supporting OPTION_V6_PREFIX64 must be configured with
>    ASM_PREFIX64 or SSM_PREFIX64, and may be configured with both.
>    U_PREFIX64 must also be configured when SSM_PREFIX64 is provided.
>    U_PREFIX64 may be configured when only ASM_PREFIX64 is provided.
> 
> Roni: OK
> 

[Med] I implemented the change in my local copy. 

> > What is the reason for “should” in the first paragraph? Are there
> > cases where ASM_PREFIX64 or ASM_PREFIX64 and SSM_PREFIX64 are
> > specified and there is no need to specify U_PREFIX64, maybe these
> > cases should be described.
> >
> 
> [Med] The presence of the unicast address is mandatory for the SSM case
> because it is required to form an IPv6 address from an IPv4 address to
> subscribe to a multicast content from a particular source. For the ASM
> case, the configuration of the U_PREFIX64 is not mandatory in the
> following cases: (1) a local mapping algorithm is enabled by the function
> that grafts the IPv4 multicast host side with an IPv6 multicast tree or
> (2) in deployments that make use of the WKP (64:ff9b::/96, RFC6052).
> 
> I can add this NEW text:
> 
>    Note that U_PREFIX64 is not mandatory for the ASM case if, for
>    example, a local address mapping algorithm is supported or the Well-
>    Know Prefix (64:ff9b::/96) is used.
> 
> Roni:OK
> 

[Med] I made the change in my local copy. 

> >
> > Nits/editorial comments:
> > 1.	RFC2119 keywords in the document are sometime capitalized and
> > sometime not. I think it will be good to have consistency and if they
> > do not intend to have RFC2119 semantics some other words should be
> > used
> >
> 
> [Med] I guess you are referring to Section 4. We are not using normative
> language on purpose because of previous comments we received from some DHC
> experts (T. Lemon). The use of normative text for the server behavior
> would mean that we are updating RFC 3315, which we do not want to do. This
> is why we are defining this section as configuration guidelines.
> 
> Roni: maybe add to section 4 text saying that this section is not
> normative and serves as guidelines, since this is a standard track
> document and usage of RFC2119 keywords may be confusing
> 
> 
[Med] Works for me. I added this NEW text to Section 4:

"This section is not normative but specifies a set of configuration guidelines."

> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art