Subject: Re: [Softwires] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-softwire-ds-lite-tunnel-option-02

From: "David W. Hankins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 18:07:08 -0800

On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 05:53:32PM -0800, IETF I-D Submission Tool wrote:
> Filename:	 draft-ietf-softwire-ds-lite-tunnel-option
> Revision:	 02

From -01 there are a few minor grammar and spelling nits, the ASCII
art is slightly reformed to be more visually in line with RFC 3315
convention, and I've omitted a useless "hierarchy" section that had
all of one sentence in it other than its subsections.  So, just
editorial stuff from what Tomasz already did in -01.

Outside of that, I did want to address one more thing from Paul;

On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 10:44:08PM +0000, Paul Selkirk wrote:
> This could be interpreted as a recommendation to use the FQDN option
> instead of the Address option.  Perhaps something like:
>    For the sake of simplicity, this option conveys a single IPv6
>    address.  If you want to convey multiple IPv6 addresses, you should
>    instead use the Dual-Stack Lite Name option, where the DNS name
>    could resolve to multiple addresses.

I've updated this bit a little differently;

   This option conveys a single IPv6 address, as the Dual-Stack Lite
   specification [I-D.softwire-ds-lite-03] defines only one Softwire
   connection between a B4 and any AFTR.  Multiple connections or
   endpoints are undefined.  For more information, see Section 7.2 "High
   Availability" of [I-D.softwire-ds-lite-03]. 

I hope this is reasonable.  Mainly I'm trying to avoid a language that
seems permissible of multiple addresses in either form.  This
particular paragraph has had a rough time adjusting from initial
discussion formats to the present day. :)

Quick link to the draft;

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-ds-lite-tunnel-option/

-- 
David W. Hankins	"If you don't do it right the first time,
Software Engineer		     you'll just have to do it again."
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.		-- Jack T. Hankins