Re-, Please see inline.
Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker [mailto:[email protected]] > Envoyé : jeudi 13 juin 2019 05:14 > À : The IESG > Cc : [email protected]; Yong Cui; Ian Farrer; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Objet : Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-24: > (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > 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? [Med] 1 octet (TLV-Type) + 1 octet (TLV-Length) + 1 octet (Reserved) + 1 octet (Prefix Length) + Length of the prefix. I suspect you were confused with the prefix names provided in the tlv description. These should not be interpreted as referring to "Reserved+Prefix Length+Prefix", but to the prefix. I reordered slightly the description text to avoid such confusion. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 [Med] Fixed. Thank you. > > * 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
