Hi Tore, I am happy with your suggestions on how to address my comments :)
Thanks! Regards, Christer -----Original Message----- From: Tore Anderson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 7. lokakuuta 2015 12:54 To: Christer Holmberg Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-2xlat-01 Hi again Christer, and thanks again for reviewing! * Christer Holmberg <[email protected]> > 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. Ack. I simply copied the definitions from -siit-dc (without the "As defined in..." prefix you proposed, since I think it would be rather repetitive). The only definition that is not identical between -siit-dc and -siit-dc-2xlat now is the ER one; the [draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-2xlat] reference is removed in -siit-dc-2xlat, instead your Q2_2 suggestion is added. Hope that's fine. > Q2_2: In the Edge Relay, I think it would be good to mention the two > types (node-based and network-based). Fixed. References to the appropriate sections defining the two variants also added. > 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)? Bytes. Fixed. > 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. Fixed. > 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. Fixed. > 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". Fixed. > Q8_2: > > Is there a need to have section 8.1, or can all text be put in section > 8? I supposed not. Fixed. The changes implemented can be seen here: https://github.com/toreanderson/ietf/commit/c22ca60c39eb0d98506ce7bae252cf5327be6acf Please have a look and let me know if further changes are required, in your opinion. Thanks again! Best regards, Tore Anderson _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
