Re: [Softwires] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-16: (with COMMENT)

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 31/01/17 14:20, [e-mail] wrote:
> Re-,
> 
> Please see inline.
> 
> Cheers, Med
> 
>> -----Message d'origine----- De : Stephen Farrell
>> [mailto:[e-mail]] Envoyé : mardi 31 janvier 2017
>> 14:45 À : The IESG Cc :
>> [e-mail]; softwire- 
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail] Objet :
>> Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-softwire-dslite- 
>> multicast-16: (with COMMENT)
>> 
>> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for 
>> draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-16: 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-dslite-multicast/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT: 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> 
- IPR: so we have a late IPR declaration that sys
>> RAND+royalty but yet the filing refers to the I-D that preceded the
>> application and there's a common author/inventor. Sheesh. But the
>> WG did consider it and were ok going ahead from a look at the
>> list. (So there's no need to reply to my whining here:-)
>> 
>> - 6.3: Is RFC7739 worth a mention here?  Not sure myself.
>> 
> [Med] Given that the document does not discuss how the identification
> field is valued and that RFC7739 provides algo EXAMPLES, I tend to
> not cite it here.
> 
>> - section 9: I'd have thought that this solution reduced the
>> potential for a DoS compared to the previous situation where
>> multicast traffic is mapped to unicast? If so, worth a mention?
>> 
> [Med] What about?
> 
> "Unlike solutions that map IPv4 multicast flows to IPv6 unicast
> flows, this document does not exacerbate Denial-of-Service (DoS)
> attacks."
> 

That seems a bit of a negative way to put it. But if
you think it's worth a mention, the it'll do:-)

S.


>