I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>
Document:
draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-2xlat-01.txt
Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
Review Date: 17 September 2015
IETF LC End Date: 22 September 2015
IETF Telechat Date: N/A
Summary: The document is well written, and
almost ready for publication. However, there are a few editorial nits that I
ask the author to address.
Major Issues: None
Minor Issues: None
Editorial Issues:
Section 2 (Terminology):
------------------------------
Q2_1: Many of the definitions have been defined in draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc.
Now they are re-defined, and sometimes with a little different wording.
For those definitions, my suggestion would be to say:
"As defined in [draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc], a XXX is a blah blah blah" -
copy/pasting the text from draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc.
Q2_2: In the Edge Relay, I think it would be good to mention the two types
(node-based and network-based).
Section 4 (Deployment Considerations):
---------------------------------------------------
Q4_1:
The text in section 4.1. says:
"The IPv6 Path MTU between the ER and the BR will
typically be larger
than the default value defined in Section 4 of [RFC6145] (1280),"
What is (1280)?
Section 5 (Intra-IDC IPv4 Communication):
---------------------------------------------------
Q5_1:
The text in section 5.1 says:
"If the BR supports hairpinning as described in Section 4.2 of I-D
.ietf-v6ops-siit-eam [I-D.ietf-v6ops-siit-eam],"
I suggest to remove I-D.ietf-v6ops-siit-eam. The reference is enough.
Section 7 (IANA Considerations):
----------------------------------------
Q7_1: Do we normally remove the section if there are no requests from IANA?
Personally I prefer to keep the explicit "This draft makes no request of the
IANA." sentence.
(I had the same comment on draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc, so whatever the outcome is
it can be applied to both documents).
Section 8 (Security Considerations):
----------------------------------------
Q8_1:
The text says:
"See the Security Considerations section in
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-siit-dc] for additional security considerations
applicable to the SIIT-DC architecture in general."
I suggest to remove "additional".
Q8_2:
Is there a need to have section 8.1, or can all text be put in section 8?
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
