Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-11

Request Review of draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 15)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-01-12
Requested 2016-12-29
Authors Mohamed Boucadair , Jacni Qin , Tina Tsou (Ting ZOU) , Xiaohong Deng
I-D last updated 2017-01-08
Completed reviews Intdir Early review of -11 by Ralf Weber (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -11 by Sheng Jiang (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -11 by Roni Even (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -12 by Roni Even (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Roni Even
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 11 (document currently at 15)
Result Almost ready
Completed 2017-01-08
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
please see the FAQ at
<>. Please resolve these
comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: 
draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-11 Reviewer: Roni Even Review
Date:2017-1-9 IETF LC End Date: 2017–1-12 IESG Telechat date:

Summary: This draft is almost  ready for publication as a standard track RFC.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

1.      In section 4 first paragraph say “DHCP servers supporting
OPTION_V6_PREFIX64 should be configured with U_PREFIX64 and at least one
multicast PREFIX64 (i.e., ASM_PREFIX64 and/or SSM_PREFIX64).” From the rest of
the section I understand that for SSM deployments both U_PREFIX64 and
SSM_PREFIX64 MUST be configured. What is the reason for “should” in the first
paragraph? Are there cases where ASM_PREFIX64 or ASM_PREFIX64 and SSM_PREFIX64
are specified and there is no need to specify U_PREFIX64, maybe these cases
should be described.

Nits/editorial comments:
1.      RFC2119 keywords in the document are sometime capitalized and sometime
not. I think it will be good to have consistency and if they do not intend to
have RFC2119 semantics some other words should be used