Subject: [Softwires] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-12: (with DISCUSS)

From: "Suresh Krishnan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 15:44:10 -0800

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-12: 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-multicast-prefix-option/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

* Section 3:

How can the ASM_mPrefix64 and SSM_mPrefix64 be (variable) as described in
the packet format when the asm-length and the ssm-length MUST be set to
96? Not sure which of these is correct and which is wrong but one of
these things (either the fixed length or the variable prefix) needs to be
fixed.

* Section 4:

This section contains a bunch of must and may level requirements but
contains the following "disclaimer" text.

"This section is not normative but specifies a set of configuration
guidelines."

Not sure what the intent behind this is. Can you clarify?

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 06:26:34 +0000

Hi Suresh, 

Thank you for the review. 

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Suresh Krishnan [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Envoyé : mercredi 1 février 2017 00:44
> À : The IESG
> Cc : [email-masked]; softwire-
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Objet : Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-
> option-12: (with DISCUSS)
> 

[Med] The text is correct. The "(variable)" mention in the figure is removed from my local copy. 

> Not sure what the intent behind this is. Can you clarify?
[Med] We are not using normative language on purpose because of previous comments we received from some DHC experts (T. Lemon). The use of normative text for the server behavior would mean that we are updating RFC 3315, which we do not want to do. This is why we are defining this section as configuration guidelines.