Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-24: Discuss
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/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I am really glad to see this document getting published. It has been a long while in the making. This should be easy to clear but I would like to make sure that the calculation used here to determine TLV lengths is accurate. * In Sections 3.1.3.3., 3.1.4.1., 3.1.4.2., 3.1.5.2, 3.3.3. the TLV-Length is shown to be 4+length of the contents of the TLV-Data (either the ipv6pref or the ipv4pref). Maybe I am missing something, but I think this should be 2+length of the contents of the TLV-Data instead. Can you please clarify how you arrived at 4+x instead of 2+x? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- * Section 3.1.3.3. The datatype for Softwire46-DMR is misspelt. OLD: The attribute Softwire46-DMR is of type ip6pref NEW: The attribute Softwire46-DMR is of type ipv6pref * Not a strong opinion but I think RFC7596, RFC7597 and RFC7599 should probably be normative instead of informative. _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
