[Softwires] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-24: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-24: Discuss

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-map-radius/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I am really glad to see this document getting published. It has been a long
while in the making.

This should be easy to clear but I would like to make sure that the calculation
used here to determine TLV lengths is accurate.

* In Sections 3.1.3.3., 3.1.4.1., 3.1.4.2., 3.1.5.2, 3.3.3. the TLV-Length is
shown to be 4+length of the contents of the TLV-Data (either the ipv6pref or
the ipv4pref). Maybe I am missing something, but I think this should be
2+length of the contents of the TLV-Data instead.

Can you please clarify how you arrived at 4+x instead of 2+x?


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

* Section 3.1.3.3.

The datatype for Softwire46-DMR is misspelt.

OLD:
The attribute Softwire46-DMR is of type ip6pref

NEW:
The attribute Softwire46-DMR is of type ipv6pref

* Not a strong opinion but I think RFC7596, RFC7597 and RFC7599 should probably
be normative instead of informative.