Re-, OK, thanks. If you prefer one sentence, then I can reword it to: Such side effect conflicts with the recommendation to support the Well-Known DNS Name heuristic discovery-based method for unicast-only environments (Section 6 of [RFC7051]). Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Sheng Jiang [mailto:jiangsheng@xxxxxxxxxx] > Envoyé : mardi 10 janvier 2017 07:48 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; ops-dir@xxxxxxxx > Cc : softwires@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-softwire-multicast- > prefix-option.all@xxxxxxxx > Objet : RE: Review of draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-11 > > Hi, Med, > > Thanks for reply. The content looks clear now. Reword into one sentence. > > Such side effect conflicts with the recommendation documented in > Section 6 of [RFC7051], in which > ^^^^^^^ > to support the Well-Known DNS Name heuristic discovery-based method > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > for unicast-only environments is recommended. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Cheers, > > Sheng > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: mohamed.boucadair@xxxxxxxxxx > > [mailto:mohamed.boucadair@xxxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 2:44 PM > > To: Sheng Jiang; ops-dir@xxxxxxxx > > Cc: softwires@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; > > draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option.all@xxxxxxxx > > Subject: RE: Review of draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-11 > > > > Hi Sheng, > > > > Thank you for the review. > > > > Please see inline. > > > > Cheers, > > Med > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > > De : Sheng Jiang [mailto:jiangsheng@xxxxxxxxxx] Envoyé : mardi 10 > > > janvier 2017 04:55 À : ops-dir@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: Sheng Jiang > > > Review result: Has Nits > > > > > > Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standard > > > track RFC. > > > > > > Major issues: > > > > > > Minor issues: > > > > > > “the specification of a DHCPv6 option that could be used to discover > > > unicast PREFIX64s in environments where multicast is not enabled. > > > Such side effect conflicts with the recommendation documented in > > > Section 6 of [RFC7051].” > > > > > > It is unclear how the Section 6 of RFC7051 relevant with the content > > > above. It would be necessary to quote particular content of RFC7051 > > > and give necessary analysis. > > > > > > > [Med] What about: > > > > OLD: > > > > Note that it was tempting to define three distinct DHCPv6 options, > > but that approach was not adopted because it has a side effect: the > > specification of a DHCPv6 option that could be used to discover > > unicast PREFIX64s in environments where multicast is not enabled. > > Such side effect conflicts with the recommendation documented in > > Section 6 of [RFC7051]. > > > > NEW: > > Note that it was tempting to define three distinct DHCPv6 options, > > but that approach was not adopted because it has a side effect: the > > specification of a DHCPv6 option that could be used to discover > > unicast PREFIX64s in environments where multicast is not enabled. > > Such side effect conflicts with the recommendation documented in > > Section 6 of [RFC7051]. As a reminder, that recommendation is to > > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > to support the Well-Known DNS Name heuristic discovery-based method > > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > ^^ > > for unicast-only environments. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > Better? > > > > > Nits: > > > > > > “the Pv4 multicast address is inserted in the last 32 bits of the > > > IPv4-embedded IPv6 > > > multicast address.” > > > > > > Pv4//IPv4 > > [Med] Fixed. > >