Hi Stephen, 

Thank you for the review. 

Please see inline. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Stephen Farrell [mailto:[email protected]]
> Envoyé : mardi 31 janvier 2017 13:45
> À : The IESG
> Cc : [email protected]; softwire-
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Objet : Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-
> prefix-option-12: (with COMMENT)
> 
> 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.)
> 

[Med] Good catch. Fixed in my local copy. 

> - (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?

[Med] Good catch (again). As per RFC6052, the length values can be 32, 48, 56, 
64, or 96. I updated the text accordingly:

NEW: 

"As specified in [RFC6052], the unicast-length MUST be one of 32, 48, 56, 64, 
or 96."

> 
> - (not sure about nittyness:-) section 5: 1st
> bullet: I'm not following what "matches" means
> here. Probably my ignorance but is it clear?
>

[Med] As you can read at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2365#section-8, there 
is a mapping between the IPv6 multicast scope and IPv4 multicast prefixes. 
"Matches" is used to denote that.  


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

Reply via email to