Re: [MBONED] Last Call: draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format-01.txt (IPv4-Embedded IPv6 Multicast Address Format) to Proposed Standard
Hi SM, Thanks a lot for your review, and please see below. On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 2:22 AM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote: Hi Med, At 08:05 25-04-2012, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: Med: Do you mean, cite RFC4291 in addition to the ref to Appendix A.2? Yes, and have Appendix A.2 as informative. Med: Yes, because as listed in Appendix A.2, we wanted to have an a prefix in the ff3x::/32 range. You are using a must. It might be interpreted differently. Maybe adding a quick explanation following it will make it better? 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. 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. Well, you tried your best. Regards, -sm __**_ MBONED mailing list mbo...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/mbonedhttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned
Re: [MBONED] Last Call: draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format-01.txt (IPv4-Embedded IPv6 Multicast Address Format) to Proposed Standard
Hi Jacni, Thanks for the feedback. At 08:32 26-04-2012, Jacni Qin wrote: 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
RE: [MBONED] Last Call: draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format-01.txt (IPv4-Embedded IPv6 Multicast Address Format) to Proposed Standard
Dear SM, Thank you for the review. Please see inline. Cheers, Med -Message d'origine- De : mboned-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:mboned-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de SM Envoyé : dimanche 22 avril 2012 01:26 À : ietf@ietf.org Cc : mbo...@ietf.org Objet : Re: [MBONED] Last Call: draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format-01.txt (IPv4-Embedded IPv6 Multicast Address Format) to Proposed Standard 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 ietf@ietf.org 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. Med: Ok. Done in my local copy. Thanks. In Section 3: To meet the requirements listed in Appendix A.2 Wouldn't it be better to reference RFC 4291? Med: Do you mean, cite RFC4291 in addition to the ref to Appendix A.2? 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? Med: Done. In Section 4: Flags must be set to 0011. Is that a requirement? Med: Yes, because as listed in Appendix A.2, we wanted to have an a prefix in the ff3x::/32 range. 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? 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 as it updates RFC 4291. 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 mbo...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned
RE: [MBONED] Last Call: draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format-01.txt (IPv4-Embedded IPv6 Multicast Address Format) to Proposed Standard
Hi Med, At 08:05 25-04-2012, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: Med: Do you mean, cite RFC4291 in addition to the ref to Appendix A.2? Yes, and have Appendix A.2 as informative. Med: Yes, because as listed in Appendix A.2, we wanted to have an a 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
