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

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Thu, 13 June 2019 06:00 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30731120199; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 23:00:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mUrQUVKmVqZL; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 23:00:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from orange.com (mta134.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.70.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD6C8120033; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 23:00:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfednr07.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.71]) by opfednr27.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 45PY4H51Vdz4xPW; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 08:00:15 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.76]) by opfednr07.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 45PY4H3jzSzFpXv; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 08:00:15 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::e878:bd0:c89e:5b42]) by OPEXCAUBM7E.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::54f9:a664:e400:452a%21]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 08:00:15 +0200
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh@kaloom.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius@ietf.org>, Yong Cui <cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn>, Ian Farrer <ianfarrer@gmx.com>, "softwire-chairs@ietf.org" <softwire-chairs@ietf.org>, "softwires@ietf.org" <softwires@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-24: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHVIZYX9okKQF4duU6c49xchZbgPaaZDj7w
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 06:00:14 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EAA5F84@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <156039565603.27176.8339230655144973930.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <156039565603.27176.8339230655144973930.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.114.13.245]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/xiSweE31vGo0J1DguyCyJQrLFME>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-24: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/softwires/>
List-Post: <mailto:softwires@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 06:00:23 -0000

Re-,

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker [mailto:noreply@ietf.org]
> Envoyé : jeudi 13 juin 2019 05:14
> À : The IESG
> Cc : draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius@ietf.org; Yong Cui; Ian Farrer;
> softwire-chairs@ietf.org; ianfarrer@gmx.com; softwires@ietf.org
> 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.