Hi Tore, I am ok with your suggestions how to address my issues. And, if people are ok with the cross-reference (Q2_1) I will not slow down the progress of the draft :)
Thanks! Regards, Christer -----Original Message----- From: Tore Anderson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 05 October 2015 15:08 To: Christer Holmberg <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-02 Hello Christer, and thank you very much for your feedback. Comments in-line. * Christer Holmberg <[email protected]> > Q1_1: > > In a few places the 'BR' abbreviation is used, but it is not enhanced until > section 2. Please enhance on first occurrence in section 1. Ack. > Q1_2: > > In a few places the 'BR' abbreviation is used, but it is not enhanced until > section 2. Please enhance on first occurrence in section 1. > > The text says: > > "o To ensure that that the legacy users' IPv4 addresses remain > visible to the nodes and applications." > > ...and: > > "This ensures that there is no loss of information; the end-user's > IPv4 source address remains available to the application, allowing" > > It may be obvious, but would it be possible to somehow make it more clear > that the text is not (I assume) talking about the application running on the > IPv4 node, but an application running in an IPv6 network? I qualified these statements as follows: [...] the legacy users' IPv4 addresses remain visible to the nodes and applications located in the IPv6 network. [...] the end-user's IPv4 source address remains available to the application located in the IPv6 network, > Section 6 (IANA Considerations): > ---------------------------------------- > > Q6_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. OK. (I had just copied this formulation from another draft from another author.) > Section 2 (Terminology): > ----------------------------- > > Q2_1: Is there really a need to define the edge relay (ER) here? > > It is not used anywhere in the document, and it creates a > cross-reference with draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-2xlat - which is the > document extending the SIIT mechanism, by defining the ER The term "ER" is used in sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and Figure 4 at least, so I think the definition needs to stay in section 2. The changes I made thanks to your review are shown here: https://github.com/toreanderson/ietf/commit/782d337d32e13a86210d5801a758320371130ce1 Please have a look and let me know if you're happy with this, or if I should more adjustments are desired. Best regards, Tore Anderson _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
