Re: [Softwires] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast-23: (with COMMENT)

Dear Alvaro, 

Thank you for your detailed comments, 

(1) §5.4 mentions an "IPv4-Embedded IPv6 Virtual Source Address Format".  Even

though source address mapping had just been discussed (§5.3), it wasn't clear

right away that you were talking about the same thing.  Maybe it was the name

used ("IPv4-Embedded IPv6 Virtual Source Address Format"), which doesn't show

up anywhere else.  Putting a note in §5.3 about the name would be nice.

We modified the name to be ""IPv4-Embedded IPv6 Source Address Format" [RFC6052].

(2) §5.4: "...every AFBR MUST announce the address of one of its E-IPv4

interfaces in the "v4" field..."  Please put a reference here to rfc6052 (so

it's easy to remember where that field came from).

We added a reference here. 

(3) §6.4: "According to [RFC7761], it SHOULD propagate..." That SHOULD is out

of place because it is not normative in this document.  Either change it to

'should', or quote the text.

We change it to “should”.

(4) §6.4: Several SHOULDs are used in this section.  In general, are there

cases where it's ok to not follow the specification?  For example, "When RP'

receives this encapsulated message, it SHOULD decapsulate..." -- are there

cases where the RP' wouldn't decapsulate.  IOW, why not use MUST instead?

We change it to “MUST”.

(5) §6.4: "...so RP' SHOULD NOT simply process this message as specified in

[RFC7761] on the incoming interface."  That "SHOULD NOT" seems to just be a

statement and not have normative value (the normative text comes in the next

paragraph).  s/SHOULD NOT/should not

We change the “SHOULD NOT” to “should not”.

Best Regards,

Shu Yang

------------------

杨术

欧德蒙科技有限公司

This message may contain privileged and confidential information only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any use, distribution or reproduction of this message is prohibited. If you have received this message in error please notify the sender immediately. 

------------------ Original ------------------
From:  "Alvaro Retana"<aretana.ietf@gmail.com>;
Date:  Wed, Sep 26, 2018 11:49 PM
To:  "The IESG"<iesg@ietf.org>; 
Cc:  "softwires"<softwires@ietf.org>; "draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast"<draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast@ietf.org>; "softwire-chairs"<softwire-chairs@ietf.org>; 
Subject:  [Softwires] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast-23: (with COMMENT)

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast-23: No Objection

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-mesh-multicast/

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

(1) §5.4 mentions an "IPv4-Embedded IPv6 Virtual Source Address Format".  Even
though source address mapping had just been discussed (§5.3), it wasn't clear
right away that you were talking about the same thing.  Maybe it was the name
used ("IPv4-Embedded IPv6 Virtual Source Address Format"), which doesn't show
up anywhere else.  Putting a note in §5.3 about the name would be nice.

(2) §5.4: "...every AFBR MUST announce the address of one of its E-IPv4
interfaces in the "v4" field..."  Please put a reference here to rfc6052 (so
it's easy to remember where that field came from).

(3) §6.4: "According to [RFC7761], it SHOULD propagate..." That SHOULD is out
of place because it is not normative in this document.  Either change it to
'should', or quote the text.

(4) §6.4: Several SHOULDs are used in this section.  In general, are there
cases where it's ok to not follow the specification?  For example, "When RP'
receives this encapsulated message, it SHOULD decapsulate..." -- are there
cases where the RP' wouldn't decapsulate.  IOW, why not use MUST instead?

(5) §6.4: "...so RP' SHOULD NOT simply process this message as specified in
[RFC7761] on the incoming interface."  That "SHOULD NOT" seems to just be a
statement and not have normative value (the normative text comes in the next
paragraph).  s/SHOULD NOT/should not

_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires