Hi Stig, Works for me.
The changes are implemented copy. I will wait for other reviews before submitting a new revision. Thank you. Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Stig Venaas [mailto:[email protected]] > Envoyé : mardi 24 janvier 2017 05:56 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN > Cc : Lee, Yiu; [email protected]; draft-ietf-softwire-dslite- > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Objet : Re: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-14.txt > > 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
