Subject: [Softwires] Review of draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-14

From: Jouni Korhonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 12:04:36 -0800

Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
Review result: Ready

I found no issues in this specification (not that I would be an expert
in multicast).
IDnits complain about one instance of lines with non-rfc3849-compliant
IPv6 addresses. That should be verified whether it actually is an
issue.

On the operations side, I am happy with the current deployment
considerations section content, and in general how some of the
deployment/operational aspects have been laid out in the document.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 06:33:09 +0000

Hi Jouni,

Thank you for the review. 

Please see inline. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Jouni Korhonen [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Envoyé : mardi 10 janvier 2017 21:05
> À : [email-masked]
> Cc : [email-masked]; draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Objet : Review of draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-14
> 
> Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
> Review result: Ready
> 

[Med] We are using the documentation prefixes when appropriate:

   IPv4 and IPv6 addresses used in this example are derived from the
   IPv4 and IPv6 blocks reserved for documentation, as per [RFC6676].
   The unicast IPv4 address of the above example is derived from the
   documentation address block defined in [RFC6890].

The instance idnit is complaining about is related to: 64:ff9b::/96. This one is not an issue.

> deployment/operational aspects have been laid out in the document.
[Med] Thank you.