Hi Joel, Good points. All your technical comments were implemented in my local copy. You may track the changes at: https://github.com/boucadair/draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius/blob/master/wdiff%20draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-23.txt%20draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-23.pdf Thank you for the review. Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Joel Halpern via Datatracker [mailto:noreply@xxxxxxxx] > Envoyé : samedi 18 mai 2019 01:10 > À : gen-art@xxxxxxxx > Cc : softwires@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-softwire-map- > radius.all@xxxxxxxx > Objet : Genart last call review of draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-23 > > Reviewer: Joel Halpern > 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 > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-?? > Reviewer: Joel Halpern > Review Date: 2019-05-17 > IETF LC End Date: 2019-05-31 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: > > Major issues: > Figure 1 of section 3.1.1 and section 3.1.1.3 do not match. It > appears > from later text that the problem is simple. Figure 3.1.1 needs to > include, > in the portion for the Softwire46-Lightweight-4over6 Attribute, the > fact > that the Softwire46-BR attribute is permitted there. Particularly > since it > is required. Section 3.1.4.1 states that the IPv6 prefix is 128 bits. > It > also points to RFC 8044 section 3.10. Section 3.10 is quite clear > that in > order to include the prefix length, the TLV may be longer that 128 > bits. > (Section 3.1.5.2 correctly uses the ipv6pref type.) Thus, it also > appears > that the stated TLV length is wrong. > Section 3.1.4.2 states that the IPv4 prefix is 32 bits. It also > points to > RFC 8044 section 3.11. Section 3.11 states that the TLV is 48 bits. > Thus, it also appears that the stated TLV length is wrong. > > Minor issues: > I trust that the WG Chairs and document shepherd will work with the > authors > to reduce the number of front page authors? I looked in the shepherd > writeup to see if there was an explanation of the large number of > authors, > but did not see one. > > Section 3.1 states that the Softwire46-Configuration Attribute may > appear > in an Access Request message. Unlike the later material on multicast, > there is no further explanation here of why it might appear, and how > it > should be processed if it does appear. It would seem sensible to > include > this material. > > Nits/editorial comments: > In the description of the entries in table 2 (in section 3.1.2) should > the > entry for "1" read "1 Mandatory, may occur only once" rather than > simply > "Mandatory"? >
