Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-24: 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-map-radius/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Editorial: In section 4 I would recommend to maybe move the points to consider at the end to its own section, as these contain normative requirements and could be overlooked if one skips over the example. Also on this specifically: “As specified in [RFC8415], Section 18.2.5, "Creation and Transmission of Rebind Messages", if the DHCPv6 server to which the DHCPv6 Renew message was sent at time T1 has not responded by time T2, the CE (DHCPv6 client) SHOULD enter the Rebind state and attempt to contact any available server. In this situation, a secondary BNG receiving the DHCPv6 message MUST initiate a new Access-Request message towards the AAA server. “ If this is normatively specified in RFC8415, I recommend to not use normative language here. However, I didn’t check the wording in RFC8415… _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
