Re-, Please see inline. Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Roni Even [mailto:roni.even@xxxxxxxxxx] > Envoyé : lundi 9 janvier 2017 11:36 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; Roni Even; gen-art@xxxxxxxx > Cc : softwires@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-softwire-multicast- > prefix-option.all@xxxxxxxx > Objet : RE: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix- > option-11 > > Hi Med, > Inline > Roni > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gen-art [mailto:gen-art-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > mohamed.boucadair@xxxxxxxxxx > Sent: יום ב 09 ינואר 2017 09:43 > To: Roni Even; gen-art@xxxxxxxx > Cc: softwires@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-softwire-multicast- > prefix-option.all@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix- > option-11 > > Dear Roni, > > Thank you for the review. > > Please see inline. > > Cheers, > Med > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > De : Roni Even [mailto:roni.even@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > Envoyé : lundi 9 janvier 2017 07:52 > > À : gen-art@xxxxxxxx > > Cc : softwires@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-softwire-multicast- > > prefix-option.all@xxxxxxxx Objet : Review of > > draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-11 > > > > Reviewer: Roni Even > > Review result: Almost Ready > > > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > > you may receive. > > Document: draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-11 > > Reviewer: Roni Even > > Review Date:2017-1-9 > > IETF LC End Date: 2017–1-12 > > IESG Telechat date: > > > > Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standard > > track RFC. > > > > > > Major issues: > > > > Minor issues: > > > > 1. In section 4 first paragraph say “DHCP servers supporting > > OPTION_V6_PREFIX64 should be configured with U_PREFIX64 and at least > > one multicast PREFIX64 (i.e., ASM_PREFIX64 and/or SSM_PREFIX64).” From > > the rest of the section I understand that for SSM deployments both > > U_PREFIX64 and SSM_PREFIX64 MUST be configured. > > [Med] Yes. If you prefer, I can change the text to make this more clear: > > OLD: > DHCP servers supporting OPTION_V6_PREFIX64 should be configured with > U_PREFIX64 and at least one multicast PREFIX64 (i.e., ASM_PREFIX64 > and/or SSM_PREFIX64). > > NEW: > DHCP servers supporting OPTION_V6_PREFIX64 must be configured with > ASM_PREFIX64 or SSM_PREFIX64, and may be configured with both. > U_PREFIX64 must also be configured when SSM_PREFIX64 is provided. > U_PREFIX64 may be configured when only ASM_PREFIX64 is provided. > > Roni: OK > [Med] I implemented the change in my local copy. > > What is the reason for “should” in the first paragraph? Are there > > cases where ASM_PREFIX64 or ASM_PREFIX64 and SSM_PREFIX64 are > > specified and there is no need to specify U_PREFIX64, maybe these > > cases should be described. > > > > [Med] The presence of the unicast address is mandatory for the SSM case > because it is required to form an IPv6 address from an IPv4 address to > subscribe to a multicast content from a particular source. For the ASM > case, the configuration of the U_PREFIX64 is not mandatory in the > following cases: (1) a local mapping algorithm is enabled by the function > that grafts the IPv4 multicast host side with an IPv6 multicast tree or > (2) in deployments that make use of the WKP (64:ff9b::/96, RFC6052). > > I can add this NEW text: > > Note that U_PREFIX64 is not mandatory for the ASM case if, for > example, a local address mapping algorithm is supported or the Well- > Know Prefix (64:ff9b::/96) is used. > > Roni:OK > [Med] I made the change in my local copy. > > > > Nits/editorial comments: > > 1. RFC2119 keywords in the document are sometime capitalized and > > sometime not. I think it will be good to have consistency and if they > > do not intend to have RFC2119 semantics some other words should be > > used > > > > [Med] I guess you are referring to Section 4. We are not using normative > language on purpose because of previous comments we received from some DHC > experts (T. Lemon). The use of normative text for the server behavior > would mean that we are updating RFC 3315, which we do not want to do. This > is why we are defining this section as configuration guidelines. > > Roni: maybe add to section 4 text saying that this section is not > normative and serves as guidelines, since this is a standard track > document and usage of RFC2119 keywords may be confusing > > [Med] Works for me. I added this NEW text to Section 4: "This section is not normative but specifies a set of configuration guidelines." > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art