Hi Jouni,
Thank you for the review.
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Jouni Korhonen [mailto:jounikor(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
Envoyé : mardi 10 janvier 2017 21:05
À : ops-dir(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc : softwires(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-
multicast(_dot_)all(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Objet : Review of draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-14
Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
Review result: Ready
I found no issues in this specification (not that I would be an expert
in multicast).
IDnits complain about one instance of lines with non-rfc3849-compliant
IPv6 addresses. That should be verified whether it actually is an
issue.
[Med] We are using the documentation prefixes when appropriate:
IPv4 and IPv6 addresses used in this example are derived from the
IPv4 and IPv6 blocks reserved for documentation, as per [RFC6676].
The unicast IPv4 address of the above example is derived from the
documentation address block defined in [RFC6890].
The instance idnit is complaining about is related to: 64:ff9b::/96. This one
is not an issue.
On the operations side, I am happy with the current deployment
considerations section content, and in general how some of the
deployment/operational aspects have been laid out in the document.
[Med] Thank you.