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

[<[e-mail]>]

Re-,

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Envoyé : jeudi 13 juin 2019 05:14
> À : The IESG
> Cc : [e-mail]; Yong Cui; Ian Farrer;
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Objet : Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-24:
> (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> 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?

[Med] 1 octet (TLV-Type) +  1 octet (TLV-Length) + 1 octet (Reserved) + 1 octet (Prefix Length) + Length of the prefix.   

I suspect you were confused with the prefix names provided in the tlv description. These should not be interpreted as referring to "Reserved+Prefix Length+Prefix", but to the prefix.

I reordered slightly the description text to avoid such confusion. 

> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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

[Med] Fixed. Thank you. 

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