That works for me. > On Jan 28, 2021, at 6:51 PM, David Allan I <david.i.allan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > HI Russ: > > I understand your major concern. How does this work? > > This encapsulation is expected to be used in environments where RFC 2516 is deployed. Therefore implementations MUST examine the version number: > - if the version number is 1, and PPPoE [RFC2516] is supported, process the frame further, else silently discard it. > - if the version number is 2 and 5WE is supported, process the frame further, else silently discard it. > In both cases frames for the supported version number should have session IDs corresponding to established sessions for the respective protocol models. A 5WE frame with an unrecognized session ID MUST be silently discarded. > > We'll correct the minor nit along with the wherever we get to with the above, and any other updates that come out of the LC. > > Rgds > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Russ Housley via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> > Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 8:02 AM > To: gen-art@xxxxxxxx > Cc: draft-allan-5g-fmc-encapsulation.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Genart last call review of draft-allan-5g-fmc-encapsulation-07 > > Reviewer: Russ Housley > 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 <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-allan-5g-fmc-encapsulation-07 > Reviewer: Russ Housley > Review Date: 2021-01-28 > IETF LC End Date: 2021-02-05 > IESG Telechat date: Unknown > > > Summary: Almost Ready > > Thank you for addressing all of the concerns raie in my earlier review. > > > Major Concerns: > > Section 1 says: > > This encapsulation is expected to be used in environments where RFC > 2516 is deployed. Therefore implementations are required to examine > the version number and react accordingly. > > Please reword as a MUST statement. Also, a simple sentence that tells the implementer how to "react accordingly" is needed. I suspect that one should follow RFC 2516 if the version is 0x01 and follow this memo if the version is 0x02. > > > Minor Concerns: > > None. > > > Nits: > > Section 1 says: "... same offset as the [RFC2516] PPPoE data ...". > The [RFC2516] is placed in an awkward location in the sentence. > > > -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
