Hi

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 2:51 AM,  <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Stig,
>
> Please see inline.
>
> Cheers,
> Med
>
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : Stig Venaas [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Envoyé : mercredi 18 janvier 2017 19:27
>> À : Lee, Yiu
>> Cc : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; [email protected]; draft-ietf-softwire-
>> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
>> Objet : Re: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-14.txt
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> The good version looks pretty good. But I noticed one more thing that
>> you might want to change. I'll leave it to you.
>>
>> 8.1.1.  The MLD Querier is Co-Located with the mAFTR
>>
>>    The mAFTR can embed the MLD Querier function (as well as the PIMv6
>>    DR) for optimization purposes.
>>
>> I'm wondering if you should say IPv6 DR or PIMv6 DR instead. As you
>> write after the heading, it must be co-located with the DR as well.
>> Normally the querier would be the same router, but the querier could
>> be another router on the link.
>
> [Med] Do you suggest to replace in the title "MLD Querier" with "PIMv6 DR"?

Yes, or I guess IPv6 DR is better. You used the term IPv4 DR below.

I'm not sure if you have it in your document, I know I should check,
but it would be good somewhere to say that DR is the Designated Router
as defined in RFC 7761.

Stig

>>
>> Then we have this section:
>>
>> 8.1.2. The DR is Co-Located with the mAFTR
>>
>> In the text you talk about the DR connected to the IPv4 source. Hence
>> it is the first hop DR, and IPv4 DR. I'm wondering if it is worth
>> saying IPv4 DR or something in the title to distinguish it from the
>> other DR. Basically we have first hop DR and last hop DR, or if you
>> like IPv4 DR and IPv6 DR.
>>
>
> [Med] Makes sense to be explicit here. I changed DR to IPv4 DR.
>
>> I'm leaving it to you to decide. This is the only remaining issue I
>> can find. There is a typo at the end of Appendix B though. It say
>> "Noet".
>
> [Med] Fixed it. Thanks.
>
>>
>> Stig
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Stig Venaas <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Sounds good, I'll still try to have another look when you post the
>> > next revision.
>> >
>> > Stig

_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

Reply via email to