[Softwires] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-23
Joel Halpern via Datatracker <firstname.lastname@example.org> Fri, 17 May 2019 23:09 UTC
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5279120152; Fri, 17 May 2019 16:09:31 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
From: Joel Halpern via Datatracker <email@example.com>
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Reply-To: Joel Halpern <email@example.com>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 16:09:31 -0700
Subject: [Softwires] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-23
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/softwires>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 23:09:32 -0000
Reviewer: Joel Halpern Review result: Almost Ready I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-?? Reviewer: Joel Halpern Review Date: 2019-05-17 IETF LC End Date: 2019-05-31 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: Major issues: Figure 1 of section 3.1.1 and section 22.214.171.124 do not match. It appears from later text that the problem is simple. Figure 3.1.1 needs to include, in the portion for the Softwire46-Lightweight-4over6 Attribute, the fact that the Softwire46-BR attribute is permitted there. Particularly since it is required. Section 126.96.36.199 states that the IPv6 prefix is 128 bits. It also points to RFC 8044 section 3.10. Section 3.10 is quite clear that in order to include the prefix length, the TLV may be longer that 128 bits. (Section 188.8.131.52 correctly uses the ipv6pref type.) Thus, it also appears that the stated TLV length is wrong. Section 184.108.40.206 states that the IPv4 prefix is 32 bits. It also points to RFC 8044 section 3.11. Section 3.11 states that the TLV is 48 bits. Thus, it also appears that the stated TLV length is wrong. Minor issues: I trust that the WG Chairs and document shepherd will work with the authors to reduce the number of front page authors? I looked in the shepherd writeup to see if there was an explanation of the large number of authors, but did not see one. Section 3.1 states that the Softwire46-Configuration Attribute may appear in an Access Request message. Unlike the later material on multicast, there is no further explanation here of why it might appear, and how it should be processed if it does appear. It would seem sensible to include this material. Nits/editorial comments: In the description of the entries in table 2 (in section 3.1.2) should the entry for "1" read "1 Mandatory, may occur only once" rather than simply "Mandatory"?
- [Softwires] Genart last call review of draft-ietf… Joel Halpern via Datatracker
- Re: [Softwires] Genart last call review of draft-… mohamed.boucadair