[Softwires] review of draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-14

[hezihao <[e-mail]>]

Hi authors,

Here is a review of version-14.

Generally, this draft looks good to me, only with some language issues. I list them out in the following. Glad if these comments could help improve this draft.

 

BR,

Zihao

 

 

1)   Section 3, step 2

This sentence is a little cumbersome. This incurs ambiguity.

For example, it’s a little hard for me to understand what is “to the RADIUS server”, what “requests authentication”, what “will be defined in the next section”.

I would think that splitting the monolithic sentence into some shorter ones would be better, which might be something like this.

“When the BNG receives the Solicit message, it should initiate a radius Access-Request message. In this message, a User-Name attribute (1) should be filled with a CE MAC address, interface-id, or both. In addition, in this message, a User-password attribute (2) should be filled with the shared password that has been preconfigured on the DHCPv6 server. *** requests authentication. *** will be defined in the next section.”

 

2)   Section 1, Para 2

“The BNG is assumed to embed a DHCPv6 server function that allows...”

 

Probably this is a grammar thing. I can’t figure out who is assumed to be embedded in whom from this expression without some inferences. I suppose that you want to speak this sentence in active voice as “We are assumed to embed a function in the BNG”, so the passive voice version might be

“A DHCPv6 server function is assumed to be embedded in the BNG”

or “In the BNG a DHCPv6 server function is assumed to be embedded.”

 

3)   Section 1, Para 3

“The RADIUS attributes designed in this document are especially for the MAP-E[RFC7597], MAP-T[RFC7599] and Lightweight 4over6[RFC7596], providing enough information…”

 

It’s a little bit difficult for me to understand what “provides enough information”, the attributes or three RFCs? Possibly it’s better to state this clearly.

 

4)   Section 3, step 6

“After receiving the client's Request message, containing the corresponding S46 Container option, the BNG SHOULD reply to…”

 

Since by “containing the option” you mean that “the message contains the option”, I would suppose that it would be better to delete the comma here. Otherwise, “containing the corresponding option” might be thought as some sort of conditions/assumptions (adverbial) of the next sentence.

 

5)    Section 4.6.2

“there are k bits in the port number representing valid of PSID.”

I think you probably omitted a word after the word 'valid', since 'valid' is an adjective.

Or is it intended as “validity”?

 

6)   Section 4.10,

“0+”

can't find '0+' in the table.