Document: draft-ietf-softwire-ds-lite-tunnel-option-03
Reviewer: Suresh Krishnan
Review Date: 2010/08/10
IESG Telechat date: 2010/08/12

Summary: This document has some minor issues that need to be fixed before 
publication as a Proposed Standard.

Minor
======

* Section 2

- From the following text

"To inform the B4 of the AFTR's location, either an IPv6 address or
 Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) may be used."

it is not clear whether both these options can be used together or 
if they are mutually exclusive (even though section 6 clarifies this 
later). Can you please clarify? Propose using

"To inform the B4 of the AFTR's location, either an IPv6 address or
 Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) or both may be used."

* Section 3

- Option length

"The client validates the DS-Lite Address option by confirming the
 option is of 16 octets in length or greater.  The client MUST ignore
 any tunnel-endpoint-addr shorter than 16 octets."

Since the option format clearly states that the option len should be 
precisely 16, and there is no reason for a client to accept a option 
len greater than 16 bytes. Can you please reword to something like

"The client validates the DS-Lite Address option by confirming the
option is of 16 octets in length. The client MUST ignore any 
tunnel-endpoint-addr that is not 16 octets in length."

* Section 5

- There is no text restricting the server from inserting multiple 
OPTION_DS_LITE_ADDR and OPTION_DS_LITE_NAME options.

* Section 6

I do not feel strongly about this but I am not sure if it is appropriate 
for this draft to describe the B4 behavior on receipt of this option. 
Should this text be removed?

"The client (B4) SHOULD establish a softwire tunnel to the 
tunnel-endpoint-addr  IPv6 address it determines from either of these options."

- There is no text restricting the client from receiving and processing 
multiple OPTION_DS_LITE_ADDR and OPTION_DS_LITE_NAME options.