Subject: [Softwires] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-24: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 20:14:16 -0700

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-24: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I am really glad to see this document getting published. It has been a long
while in the making.

This should be easy to clear but I would like to make sure that the calculation
used here to determine TLV lengths is accurate.

* In Sections 3.1.3.3., 3.1.4.1., 3.1.4.2., 3.1.5.2, 3.3.3. the TLV-Length is
shown to be 4+length of the contents of the TLV-Data (either the ipv6pref or
the ipv4pref). Maybe I am missing something, but I think this should be
2+length of the contents of the TLV-Data instead.

Can you please clarify how you arrived at 4+x instead of 2+x?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

* Section 3.1.3.3.

The datatype for Softwire46-DMR is misspelt.

OLD:
The attribute Softwire46-DMR is of type ip6pref

NEW:
The attribute Softwire46-DMR is of type ipv6pref

* Not a strong opinion but I think RFC7596, RFC7597 and RFC7599 should probably
be normative instead of informative.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 06:00:14 +0000

Re-,

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Envoyé : jeudi 13 juin 2019 05:14
> À : The IESG
> Cc : [email-masked]; Yong Cui; Ian Farrer;
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Objet : Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-24:
> (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 

[Med] 1 octet (TLV-Type) +  1 octet (TLV-Length) + 1 octet (Reserved) + 1 octet (Prefix Length) + Length of the prefix.   

I suspect you were confused with the prefix names provided in the tlv description. These should not be interpreted as referring to "Reserved+Prefix Length+Prefix", but to the prefix.

I reordered slightly the description text to avoid such confusion. 

[Med] Fixed. Thank you.

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 12:33:37 +0000

Hi Med,
  Thanks for the quick response.

On Jun 13, 2019, at 2:00 AM, [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> wrote:

Re-,

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker [mailto:[email-masked]]
Envoyé : jeudi 13 juin 2019 05:14
À : The IESG
Cc : [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>; Yong Cui; Ian Farrer;
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Objet : Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-24:
(with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

I am really glad to see this document getting published. It has been a
long
while in the making.

This should be easy to clear but I would like to make sure that the
calculation
used here to determine TLV lengths is accurate.

* In Sections 3.1.3.3., 3.1.4.1., 3.1.4.2., 3.1.5.2, 3.3.3. the TLV-Length
is
shown to be 4+length of the contents of the TLV-Data (either the ipv6pref
or
the ipv4pref). Maybe I am missing something, but I think this should be
2+length of the contents of the TLV-Data instead.

Yes. I think this labeling is confusing because the inner field is called “Prefix” instead of "dmr-ipv6-prefix” which is the whole datatype. I would have been happier with 2+Length of TLV-Data.

Sounds good. Send over the new text proposal and I will clear.

* Section 3.1.3.3.

OLD:

NEW:

[Med] Fixed. Thank you.

Excellent.

Thanks
Suresh