Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-12: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - (nit) section 3: it seems odd to say in the figure that the prefixes are variable length but to then say the lengths of two of them MUST be 96 bits. (I do think having the fields as is is good for futureproofing, but would suggest changing the figure.) - (non-nit:-) section 3: I'm not getting why the unicast-length can be >96? And what if the prefix length is not one of those given in RFC6052? Don't you need to say it needs to be? - (not sure about nittyness:-) section 5: 1st bullet: I'm not following what "matches" means here. Probably my ignorance but is it clear? _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
