Hi Qin, Thanks for your comments. Please see inline.
Cheers, Ian > On 12 Mar 2015, at 08:53, Qin Wu <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear all, > I have read this document and think the softwire yang model is needed for the > configuration and management of Softwire BRs and CPEs. > A few comments below: > In section 3.2, why the binding-ipv6-addr and binding-ipv6-prefix are both > contained in the binding-table? [if] The intention here is to allow for the binding table to be specified in one of two ways, either with an explicit /128 or a /64 with the IID automatically constructed from the IPv4 address and port set. Looking at the model again, the way that it is currently defined is wrong. Here’s an updated section of the model that should achieve the above: | +--rw (binding-v6info) | | +—:(ipv6addr) | | | +--rw binding-ipv6-addr inet:ipv6-address | | +—:(ipv6pref) | | +--rw binding-ipv6-prefix inet:ipv6-prefix > In section 1.1, in RFC6087, I don't see the definitions of the symbols used > in these diagrams. Is the reference RFC6087 correct? [if] Good spot. We’ll remove this reference in the next version. > For the title of "2.3 Lightweight 4over6 lwB4", I think "lwB4" should be > uppercase to get consistent with "ATFR”. [if] The capitalisation in draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6 uses the terms ‘lwB4’ and ‘lwAFTR’ throughout, so the intention is to be consistent with this. > > -Qin > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
