Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update-03.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 00:51:49 -0800

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group of the IETF.

        Title           : Updates to the IPv6 Multicast Addressing Architecture
        Authors         : Mohamed Boucadair
                          Stig Venaas
	Filename        : draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update-03.txt
	Pages           : 9
	Date            : 2014-02-13

Abstract:
   This document updates the IPv6 multicast addressing architecture by
   defining the 17-20 reserved bits as generic flag bits.  The document
   provides also some clarifications related to the use of these flag
   bits.

   This document updates RFC 3956, RFC 3306 and RFC 4291.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update-03

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update-03

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:59:02 +0100

Dear all,

This new version integrates the comments received during the WGLC. The changes are mainly editorial.

Jouni/Tatuya can you please double check the new version and let us know if the modifs solve your concerns? Thank you in advance.

Errata can be also filled for each updated RFC.

Cheers,
Med

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : I-D-Announce [mailto:[email-masked]] De la part de
>[email-masked]
>Envoyé : jeudi 13 février 2014 09:52
>À : [email-masked]
>Cc : [email-masked]
>Objet : I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update-03.txt
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>I-D-Announce mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
>Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
>or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

---

From: 神明達哉 <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:55:18 -0800

> Jouni/Tatuya can you please double check the new version and let us know if the modifs solve your concerns? Thank you in advance.

This point in my original comment doesn't seem to be fully addressed:

- In the NEW format of Section 4.2, this sentence may need to be
  revisited:

      In this case, the last 4
      bits of the previously reserved field are interpreted as embedding
      the RP interface ID, as specified in this memo.

In 03, the corresponding part is

   [..] When the
   R-bit is set, the last 4 bits of the previously reserved field are
   interpreted as embedding the RP interface ID, as specified in this memo.

but it doesn't address my concern since the point is "the previously
reserved" can be ambiguous.

I also noticed this (weak) suggestion wasn't adopted:

: Ah, okay.  Maybe it's a distraction, but I'd consider adding a
: "TERMINOLOGY" section or something, where we clarify the point (i.e.,
: the draft generally follows RFC 5952 to represent IPv6 addresses
: except in citation of already published documents).  But I'd leave it
: to you.

If ignoring it was your intent, that's fine.  I'm pointing it out just
in case it's overlooked.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya

---

From: Jouni Korhonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 00:35:33 +0200

Ok from my side.

- Jouni

On Feb 13, 2014, at 10:59 AM, [email-masked] wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email-masked]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 07:59:41 +0100

Dear Tatuya,

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med

>De : [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] De la part
>de ????
>Envoyé : jeudi 13 février 2014 20:55
>À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
>Cc : [email-masked]
>Objet : Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update-03.txt
>
>> Jouni/Tatuya can you please double check the new version and let us know
>if the modifs solve your concerns? Thank you in advance.
>

[Med] But that sentence is almost the same as in RFC3956: 

"...the last 4
   bits of the previously reserved field are interpreted as embedding
   the RP interface ID, as specified in this memo. "

That text should be interpreted in the context of RFC3956. 

>If ignoring it was your intent, that's fine.  I'm pointing it out just
[Med] This comment was included: see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update-03#section-1  

   Textual representation of IPv6 addresses included in the RFC updates
   follows the recommendation in [RFC5952].

---

From: 神明達哉 <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 09:32:28 -0800

Sorry for the delayed response, I've been effectively offline for a
while.

> That text should be interpreted in the context of RFC3956.

I'm not sure if I understand your logic here, but is there any problem
with my suggested text?

      In this case, the last 4 bits of the field that were reserved in
      [RFC3306] are interpreted as embedding the RP interface ID, as
      specified in this memo.

I believe it's still in the context of RFC3956 (RFC3306 was published
before RFC3956, and the original RFC3956 actually refers to RFC3306
already), and yet addresses my point.  This is relatively a minor
point, and I'm not insisting on adopting the suggestion, but I simply
don't see the reason for not doing so.

>    follows the recommendation in [RFC5952].

Ah, okay, I missed that part.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya