Thanks for your review again, Christer! Jari
On 05 Oct 2015, at 23:59, Christer Holmberg <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
