Dear SM,
Thank you for the review.
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
-----Message d'origine-----
De : mboned-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:mboned-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]
De la part de SM
Envoyé : dimanche 22 avril 2012 01:26
À : ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc : mboned(_at_)ietf(_dot_)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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)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
MBONED(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned