Re: [Softwires] draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6 excluding Well Known Ports

Well, I'm referring to the "RECOMMENDED" part. If the recommendation is NOT
to allocate ports 0-1024, then this effectively recommends that a-bits=6.
Moreover the meaning of SHOULD vs RECOMMEND should be questioned. The
latter is not a regular normative term, and arguably if the recommendation
is for excluding 0-1024 then a=6 looks like the SHOULD. If anyone wants the
full port set, then a=0 would be an obvious consequence.

On 2 June 2014 19:50, Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com> wrote:

> Not sure how you read that, but it can be fixed by putting a comma after
> "SHOULD be 0" and replacing "to allocate" with "thus allocating".
>
> Tom
>
>
> On 02/06/2014 12:14 PM, Wojciech Dec wrote:
>
>> Uhm, this appears to mean that the RECOMMENDED a-bits SHOULD be 6.
>>
>>
>> On 26 May 2014 13:24, Ian Farrer <ianfarrer@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>  Hi,
>>>
>>> This one slipped my mind….
>>>
>>>  From a discussion with Ole during the MAP dhcp last call, there was a
>>> discussion about the exclusion of provisioning WKPs to CPEs -
>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires/current/msg06010.html
>>>
>>> In previous versions, the lw4o6 used to reference
>>> sun-dhc-port-set-option,
>>> which also stated that the WKPs should not be assigned. This advice got
>>> lost when changing to reference map-dhcp for PSID format.
>>>
>>> Here’s a wording change proposal to resolve this:
>>>
>>> Section 5.1
>>>
>>> Original text (last sentence, para 7):
>>>
>>> "For lw4o6, the  number of a-bits SHOULD be 0."
>>>
>>> Proposed change:
>>>
>>> "For lw4o6, the number of a-bits SHOULD be 0 to allocate a single
>>> contiguous port set to each lwB4.
>>>
>>> Unless a lwB4 is being allocated a full IPv4 address, it is RECOMMENDED
>>> that PSIDs containing the well-known ports (0-1023) are not allocated to
>>> lwB4s.”
>>>
>>> Please let me know if you are OK with the proposed change.
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> Ian
>>>
>>>
>>>>  Good spot on the WKP exclusion. Before the lw4o6 draft was updated to
>>>>>
>>>> reference map-dhcp for configuration,  the port configuration was
>>> described
>>> in sun-dhc-port-set-option, which also stated that the WKPs should not be
>>> assigned. This advice got lost when changing to reference map-dhcp. I’ll
>>> make a suggested text update for the lw4o6 draft to fix this. Does that
>>> work for you?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> yes, that would be good.
>>>>
>>>> cheers,
>>>> Ole
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Softwires mailing list
>>> Softwires@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Softwires mailing list
>> Softwires@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>>
>>