Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-07

Ole Troan <ot@cisco.com> Tue, 22 April 2014 13:17 UTC

Return-Path: <ot@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5960F1A044A for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 06:17:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.773
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.773 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 y5Owd2sZ0l2R for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 06:17:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9AF01A0430 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 06:17:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1844; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1398172627; x=1399382227; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to; bh=tVF+3hq7i8nE5J98G/Xyz6qx7mxmH10n5zE/Jt9sb+k=; b=bkntkc76skiGsILgRoths+ixfxwKanU4gmmx6hgZU9071X1h/Mq0+Jxn 267Oi9RFriaggmrLy51WECB/BqwZzIHiIbvtxJd9L3jtzs+AG+IXDWTFJ zryynFgEJi+rmjNC/wdVg7ga8ul4Rij0T0zKf5XHPaZwEpastYlyegFJo 8=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 496
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhYFACZrVlOQ/khL/2dsb2JhbABZgwbFPIEXFnSCJQEBAQMBHVwFCwtGVwaITAjMUxeOVgeDJIEUAQOQb4gBklKDMzs
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.97,904,1389744000"; d="asc'?scan'208"; a="19189524"
Received: from ams-core-2.cisco.com ([144.254.72.75]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Apr 2014 13:17:05 +0000
Received: from dhcp-10-61-103-98.cisco.com (dhcp-10-61-103-98.cisco.com [10.61.103.98]) by ams-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s3MDH4Us019800 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 22 Apr 2014 13:17:05 GMT
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_902C7CAC-67C8-4DFE-AE9B-65492E502014"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Ole Troan <ot@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <37A243DD-5249-4070-AB19-6DFFCFE17AA7@gmx.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 15:17:36 +0200
Message-Id: <DC98AF70-DBF1-48AD-8699-2FC4E645FF40@cisco.com>
References: <53422B8F.2020109@ericsson.com> <37A243DD-5249-4070-AB19-6DFFCFE17AA7@gmx.com>
To: Ian Farrer <ianfarrer@gmx.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/NqvNLVKq0vjedhIBS4uF8218Cc4
Cc: Softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>, Yong Cui <cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-07
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 22 Apr 2014 13:17:16 -0000

Ian,

> And two comments on section 4.5:
> This section is entirely MAP specific, although the sub-option is generally applicable to all of the containers.

while I think it is fine that it refers to the "MAP algorithm", I agree it shouldn't refer to "MAP interface". would you have a go at more generic text?

> The default value of 6 for the ‘offset’ field either shouldn’t be specified here, or should have ‘6’ for MAP and ‘0’ for lw4o6.

we might not need to include that in the map-dhcp document, since it is already in map base.
btw, is '0' a wise choice for LW46? I don't see any evaluation or recommendations in the LW46 document about what to do with a PSID of 0 and an offset of 0. try sourcing a few packets from TCP port 25 to random picked destination, to understand my point.

cheers,
Ole