Subject: Review of draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-11

From: Sheng Jiang <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2017 19:55:01 -0800

Reviewer: Sheng Jiang
Review result: Has Nits

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standard
track RFC.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

“the specification of a DHCPv6 option that could be used to discover
   unicast PREFIX64s in environments where multicast is not enabled.
   Such side effect conflicts with the recommendation documented in
   Section 6 of [RFC7051].”

It is unclear how the Section 6 of RFC7051 relevant with the content
above. It would be necessary to quote particular content of RFC7051
and give necessary analysis.

Nits:

“the Pv4 multicast address is inserted in the last 32 bits of the
IPv4-embedded IPv6
   multicast address.”

Pv4//IPv4

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 06:43:56 +0000

Hi Sheng, 

Thank you for the review. 

Please see inline. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Sheng Jiang [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Envoyé : mardi 10 janvier 2017 04:55
> À : [email-masked]
> Cc : [email-masked]; [email-masked]; draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-
> [email-masked]
> Objet : Review of draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-11
> 
> Reviewer: Sheng Jiang
> Review result: Has Nits
> 

[Med] What about:  

OLD: 

   Note that it was tempting to define three distinct DHCPv6 options,
   but that approach was not adopted because it has a side effect: the
   specification of a DHCPv6 option that could be used to discover
   unicast PREFIX64s in environments where multicast is not enabled.
   Such side effect conflicts with the recommendation documented in
   Section 6 of [RFC7051].

NEW: 
   Note that it was tempting to define three distinct DHCPv6 options,
   but that approach was not adopted because it has a side effect: the
   specification of a DHCPv6 option that could be used to discover
   unicast PREFIX64s in environments where multicast is not enabled.
   Such side effect conflicts with the recommendation documented in
   Section 6 of [RFC7051]. As a reminder, that recommendation is to
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   to support the Well-Known DNS Name heuristic discovery-based method
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   for unicast-only environments.
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 

Better?

> “the Pv4 multicast address is inserted in the last 32 bits of the
[Med] Fixed.

---

From: Sheng Jiang <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 06:47:54 +0000

Hi, Med,

Thanks for reply. The content looks clear now. Reword into one sentence.

Such side effect conflicts with the recommendation documented in
    Section 6 of [RFC7051], in which 
                       ^^^^^^^
    to support the Well-Known DNS Name heuristic discovery-based method 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    for unicast-only environments is recommended.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Cheers,

Sheng

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 2:44 PM
> To: Sheng Jiang; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Review of draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-11
> 
> Hi Sheng,
> 
> > De : Sheng Jiang [mailto:[email-masked]] Envoyé : mardi 10
> > janvier 2017 04:55 À : [email-masked] Cc : [email-masked];
> > [email-masked]; draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-
> > [email-masked] Objet : Review of
> > draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-11
> >
> > Reviewer: Sheng Jiang
> > Review result: Has Nits
> >

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 07:17:19 +0000

Re-,

OK, thanks. 

If you prefer one sentence, then I can reword it to: 

   Such side effect conflicts with the recommendation to support the
   Well-Known DNS Name heuristic discovery-based method for unicast-only
   environments (Section 6 of [RFC7051]).

Cheers,
Med

> Envoyé : mardi 10 janvier 2017 07:48
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; [email-masked]
> Objet : RE: Review of draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-11
> 
> Hi, Med,
>

---

From: Sheng Jiang <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 07:17:59 +0000

Looks good for me, thanks. Sheng

> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 3:17 PM
> > janvier 2017 07:48 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; [email-masked]
> Cc
> > : [email-masked]; [email-masked]; draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-
> > [email-masked] Objet : RE: Review of
> > > Subject: RE: Review of
> > > > It is unclear how the Section 6 of RFC7051 relevant with the
> > > > content above. It would be necessary to quote particular content
> > > > of RFC7051 and give necessary analysis.
> > > >
> > >
> > > [Med] What about:
> > >
> > > OLD:
> > >