Forwarding to the list.
Hi Yu, Thanks for the update. I think the changes that you have made have improved the document significantly, but there’s still a few things that need to be addressed. Please see below. Also, Jordi asked a question about this draft, which I don’t think has been replied to: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/_7ocUxBwy9i2UqNj2tzqri9p0Gw <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/_7ocUxBwy9i2UqNj2tzqri9p0Gw> Thanks, Ian New comments on -16: Throughout - the use of 'Sub TLV' and 'Sub-TLV' is not consistent. Sub-TLV seems to be the convention in other RFCs (e.g. RFC6929). Introduction. s/At the Section 4.9/In Section 4.9/ As the softwire prioritisation funciton of RFC8026 is also included, there should be a short paragraph (a cut down version of sec 4, para 3) stating that this function is included. Section 3, point 6. In the diagram, you show a simple reply message being sent to the client, but the accompanying text describes a number of other communication flows and updates that can potentially need to happen. Really, the whole of this section is not really well constructed in it's current form. The purpose of the numbered points is to describe what is in the flows in the diagram, but point 6. goes on to included a further page and a half of options and considerations. Can point 6 not be ended after the sentance ending ....enumerated in the ORO.? and the remaining text in section 3 be put into relevantly named sub-sections. 4.4.2 S46-BR Sub TLV S46-Lightweight--4over6 TLV - please remove duplicate '-'. 4.5 Sub-TLVs for S46-Rule Sub TLV Given the RFC2119 language used in the requirements for the other options, suggest the following: s/It should appear for once and only once./It MUST appear exactly once./ 4.6.2 The Bind-IPv6-Prefix Sub-TLV s/The bind-ipv6-prefix field specified in this field/The bind-ipv6-prefix specified in this field/ --------- Updated comments from my previous review: 1.f) After the sentence "A DHCPv6 server function is assumed to be embedded in the BNG that allows it to locally handle any DHCPv6 requests initiated by hosts." it would be worth adding that the term BNG is used througout the document to describe a device which functions as both the AAA client and DHCPv6 server. [if - New version is better, but a suggested rewording for these two sentances: A DHCPv6 server function is assumed to be embedded in the BNG that allows it to locally handle DHCPv6 requests initiated by hosts. The abbrieviation BNG is used in this document to describe a device which functions as both the AAA client and DHCPv6 sever.] 1.i) Last paragraph: It would also be worth saying how the structure of the DHCP options and field namings are preserved so they can easily be mapped between DHCP and RADIUS. [if - I can't find any changes in the text for this, or any repsonse to the comment.] ---------------------------- 3.c) The figure is easier to follow if it is space out a bit more and clafifies the first step: CE BNG AAA Server | | | |-------1.DHCPv6 Solicit------->| | |(ORO with unicast and/or m'cast| | | container option code(s)) | | | | | | |-------2.Access-Request------->| | | (S46-Configuration attribute | | |and/or S46-Multicast attribute)| | | | | |<------3.Access-Accept---------| | | (S46-Configuration attribute | | |and/or S46-Multicast attribute)| | | | |<----4.DHCPv6 Advertisement----| | | (container option(s)) | | | | | |-------5.DHCPv6 Request------>| | | (container Option(s)) | | | | | |<--------6.DHCPv6 Reply--------| | | (container option(s)) | | | | | DHCPv6 RADIUS [if - Old diagram is still present, please use the above figure.] 3.f) Replace: For the multicast case, OPTION_V6_PREFIX64 should be included for the delivery of multicast services in the context of transition to IPv6. with: For the multicast case, the the option number for OPTION_V6_PREFIX64 (113) should be included in the client's ORO. [if - Sorry, I doubled the word 'the' in my suggested text. Please use 'case, the option number'] 3.l) Item 3. uses an RFC2119 MUST statement. This is the first time in the message flow that any compulsory behaviour is defined. The requirements language should be consitent throughout all of the steps (either all RFC2119, or none) A MUST here is also strange. What if the AAA server doesn't have the requested configuration to supply to the client? [if - Sorry, I doubled the word 'the' in my suggested text. Please use 'case, the option number'] 3.m) In the DHCPv6 Advertisement message, there needs to be the corresponding DHCPv6 option holding the correct information from the RADIUS message. This means that we need to map the fields from the attributes to the options. A table showing how this mapping is done would be very useful. [if - I can't find any changes in the text for this, or any repsonse to the comment.] 3.p) "The recommended format of the MAC address is defined as Calling-Station- Id (Section 3.20 in [RFC3580] without the SSID (Service Set Identifier) portion." I don't understand the meaning of this sentence in context of where we are in the message flow. What is the MAC address that is needed at this stage? [if - The addtional text doesn't answer this question. The BNG is constructing a DHCPv6 Reply message. Where does a MAC address belong in this message? If it's the MAC address that it will source the DHCPv6 reply message from, why is it being changed at this stage rather than configured in advance (i.e. before the Advertise is sent) so it can be consistent throughout the whole DHCP message flow?] 3.r) The paragraph begining "The authorization process could also..." doesn't really make sense where it is located. The previous paragraph does not follow from the previous para. concerning lw4o6 syncronisation and refers to a previous scenario, although it's not really clear what that scenario is. This could be cleared up by (1) making it clear that section 3 fig 1. is describing combined Authentication and Authorisation. (2) Creating a sub-section for this paragraph (and the one below it) that detail what the changes are from the steps in section 3 (i.e. where additional attributes are needed / not needed and what they contain). [if - Currently still a problem, please see my general comments on this version above.] 3.s) The final 3 paragraphs deal with some error handling conditions. Perhaps a sub-section for these would make for a better structure? [if - The error handling text is now duplicated, once with bullet points and again in the body text. Please fix.] 3.u) There's no text on what happens when the client send a DHCPv6 Release, Decline, or an associtated DHCPv6 lease expires (invalidating any options supplied with that lease). [if - I can't find any changes in the text for this, or any repsonse to the comment.] On 26. Jun 2018, at 10:54, Yu Fu <f...@cnnic.cn> wrote: Hi Ian, Sorry to update the 16 version of this draft a little late. It takes me a long long time to redesign the format of Softwire46-Configuration Attribute and Priority Attribute and the nested TLVS according to the RFC6929 and RFC8044. And it also takes me a long time to double check the new formatting and the hierarchy of the nested TLVs. The main changes for this version are as followed base on your comments from WGLC. 1) As your suggested, it divided the Figure 2 into 3 diagrams (one for each type) for MAP-E, MAP-T, and Lightweight 4over6. So it can make the Figure 2 more clear to show which TLV is necessary and which is optional. 2) It makes a common format for the definitions of which RADIUS messages types the Softwire46-configuration/ Priority /multicast attributes can appear in the section 4.1 and 4.8. 3) It changes the description text and formatting of the Softwire46-configuration/ Priority attribute according to the RFC6929 and RFC8044 so as to consistent with the format of Softwire46-multicast attribute. 4) The IANA Consideration has been rewritten so that it will be more clear for the assignment of the Attribute Types and new RADIUS TLVs. 5) Some grammar mistakes and typos have been corrected. Your valuable comments are appreciated. Thanks Yu -----Original Message----- From: softwires-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet-dra...@ietf.org Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 3:59 PM To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org Cc: softwires@ietf.org Subject: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-16.txt A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Softwires WG of the IETF. Title : RADIUS Attributes for Address plus Port based Softwire Mechanisms Authors : Sheng Jiang Yu Fu Bing Liu Peter Deacon Chongfeng Xie Tianxiang Li Mohamed Boucadair Filename : draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-16.txt Pages : 37 Date : 2018-06-26 Abstract: IPv4-over-IPv6 transition mechanisms provide both IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity services simultaneously during the IPv4/IPv6 co- existence period. DHCPv6 options have been defined for configuring clients to use MAP-E, MAP-T, Lightweight 4over6 and Multicast Basic Bridging BroadBand (mB4) in multicast scenarios. However, in many networks, the configuration information may be stored in an AAA server, while user configuration information is mainly provided by the BNG through the DHCPv6 protocol. This document defines three new RADIUS attributes that carry CE or mB4 configuration information from an AAA server to BNG. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-16 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-16 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-16 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
