Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format-01.txt> (IPv4-Embedded IPv6 Multicast Address Format) to Proposed Standard

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 16:26:23 -0700

At 15:33 18-04-2012, The IESG wrote:
>The IESG has received a request from the MBONE Deployment WG (mboned) to
>consider the following document:
>- 'IPv4-Embedded IPv6 Multicast Address Format'
>   <draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format-01.txt> as a Proposed
>Standard
>
>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>[email-masked] mailing lists by 2012-05-02. Exceptionally, comments may be

Is there a write-up for this proposal?

In Section 2:

   "The format to build such addresses is defined in Section 3 for
    ASM mode and Section 4 for SSM mode."

I suggest expanding ASM and SSM on first use.

In Section 3:

   "To meet the requirements listed in Appendix A.2"

Wouldn't it be better to reference RFC 4291?

   "This field must follow the recommendations specified in [RFC3306]
    if unicast-based prefix is used or the recommendations specified
    in [RFC3956] if embedded-RP is used."

Shouldn't that be a MUST?

In Section 4:

   "Flags must be set to 0011."

Is that a requirement?

   "The embedded IPv4 address SHOULD be in the 232/8 range [RFC4607].
    232.0.0.1-232.0.0.255 range is being reserved to IANA."

Why is this a SHOULD?  What does being reserved to IANA mean?

Although the proposal appears simple, I would suggest further review 
as it updates RFC 4291.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:05:23 +0200

Dear SM,

Thank you for the review. 

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med 

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>De la part de SM
>Envoyé : dimanche 22 avril 2012 01:26
>À : [email-masked]
>Cc : [email-masked]
>Objet : Re: [MBONED] Last Call: 
><draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format-01.txt> 
>(IPv4-Embedded IPv6 Multicast Address Format) to Proposed Standard
>

Med: Ok. Done in my local copy. Thanks.

>Wouldn't it be better to reference RFC 4291?

Med: Do you mean, cite RFC4291 in addition to the ref to Appendix A.2?

>Shouldn't that be a MUST?

Med: Done. 

>   "Flags must be set to 0011."

Med: Yes, because as listed in Appendix A.2, we wanted to have an a prefix in the ff3x::/32 range.

>Why is this a SHOULD? 

Med: We first considered a "MUST" but we relaxed that required to "SHOULD" for any future use case which may need to map IPv4 ASM to IPv6 SSM. Does this makes sense to you?

 What does being reserved to IANA mean?

Med: It should be "for IANA allocation" instead of "to IANA". Better?

>Although the proposal appears simple, I would suggest further review 

Med: Reviews are more than welcome. FWIW, a call for review has been issued in 6man and 6vops for 2 weeks:
* http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg15488.html
* http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg12174.html

>
>Regards,
>-sm
>
>_______________________________________________
>MBONED mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned
>

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:22:29 -0700

Hi Med,
>Med: Do you mean, cite RFC4291 in addition to the ref to Appendix A.2?

Yes, and have Appendix A.2 as informative.

>prefix in the ff3x::/32 range.

You are using a "must".  It might be interpreted differently.

>Med: We first considered a "MUST" but we relaxed that required to 
>"SHOULD" for any future use case which may need to map IPv4 ASM to 
>IPv6 SSM. Does this makes sense to you?

Yes.

>Med: It should be "for IANA allocation" instead of "to IANA". Better?

There is no mention of that in the IANA Considerations section.  The 
range is already reserved for SSM destination addresses.  I am at a 
lost on that part of the text.  I'll defer to you on this.

Well, you tried your best.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Jacni Qin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 23:32:05 +0800

Hi SM,

Thanks a lot for your review, and please see below.

On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 2:22 AM, SM <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Maybe adding a quick explanation following it will make it better?

>> "SHOULD" for any future use case which may need to map IPv4 ASM to IPv6
>> SSM. Does this makes sense to you?
>>
>
> Yes.
>
>
> There is no mention of that in the IANA Considerations section.  The range
> is already reserved for SSM destination addresses.

Right, that's why we think there is no need to mention that again. Sorry,
I'm a little confused. or I misunderstood what you mean? ;-)

Cheers,
Jacni

> I am at a lost on that part of the text.  I'll defer to you on this.
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> MBONED mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/mboned<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned>
>

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:40:23 -0700

Hi Jacni,

Thanks for the feedback.

>Maybe adding a quick explanation following it will make it better?

If it's a requirement, you could use "MUST".   You are using the RFC 
2119 key words in the previous and following bullet points to specify 
the requirements.

>Right, that's why we think there is no need to mention that again. 
>Sorry, I'm a little confused. or I misunderstood what you mean? ;-)

If one reads the text, it's not clear whether the range is being 
reserved or not.

BTW, Med followed up on this.

Regards,
-sm