Thanks for the review & the quick updates. Much appreciated, both. I have balloted no-obj for this document.
Jari On 16 Feb 2016, at 14:53, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you for the quick update. All the (minor) issues that I raised were > addressed. From the Gen-ART point of view this document is ready. > > Regards, > > Dan > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 11:04 AM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); General Area Review Team > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-behave-requirements-update > > Hi Dan, > > FWIW, an updated version integrating your comments is available online: > > URL: > https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tsvwg-behave-requirements-update-07.txt > Status: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-behave-requirements-update/ > Htmlized: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-behave-requirements-update-07 > Diff: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-tsvwg-behave-requirements-update-07 > > Thank you. > > Cheers, > Med > > De : Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[email protected]] > Envoyé : lundi 15 février 2016 17:31 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; General Area Review Team > Cc : [email protected] > Objet : RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-behave-requirements-update > > Hi Med, > > Thank you for the quick answer and for addressing my comments. Your > suggestions are fine with me. > > Regards, > > Dan > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 6:29 PM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); General Area Review Team > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-behave-requirements-update > > Hi Dan, > > Thank you for the review. > > Please see inline. > > Cheers, > Med > > De : Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[email protected]] > Envoyé : lundi 15 février 2016 17:18 > À : General Area Review Team > Cc : [email protected] > Objet : Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-behave-requirements-update > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review > Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the > IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call > comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq> > > Document: draft-ietf-tsvwg-behave-requirements-update-06 > Reviewer: Dan Romascanu > Review Date: 2/15/16 > IETF LC End Date: 2/16/16 > IESG Telechat date: > > Summary: This document is ready with minor issues. > > Major issues: > > None > > Minor issues: > > 1. The text in the second and third paragraphs in section 2.2 is rather > confusing. Do these belong to updates, or should they be under Notes? > > Ø Admittedly, the NAT has to verify whether received TCP RST packets belong > to a connection. This verification check is required to avoid off-path > attacks. > > Ø If the NAT removes immediately the NAT mapping upon receipt of a TCP RST > message, stale connections may be maintained by endpoints if the first RST > message is lost between the NAT and the recipient. > > If they belong to Updates ‘Admittedly’ needs to be dropped, ‘has to verify’ > becomes ‘SHOULD verify’, etc. > Else, if these are rather notes they should be labeled Notes or Clarification > > [Med] These are notes. What about making this change? > > OLD: > > Admittedly, the NAT has to verify whether received TCP RST packets > belong to a connection. This verification check is required to > avoid off-path attacks. > > If the NAT removes immediately the NAT mapping upon receipt of a > TCP RST message, stale connections may be maintained by endpoints > if the first RST message is lost between the NAT and the > recipient. > > NEW: > > Notes: > * Admittedly, the NAT has to verify whether received TCP RST packets > belong to a connection. This verification check is required to > avoid off-path attacks. > > * If the NAT removes immediately the NAT mapping upon receipt of a > TCP RST message, stale connections may be maintained by endpoints > if the first RST message is lost between the NAT and the > recipient. > > > > 2. In section 5: > > Ø This update is compliant with the stateful NAT64 [RFC6146] that clearly > specifies three binding information bases (TCP, UDP, ICMP). > > As the focus of this document is NAT44, I do not believe that ‘compliant’ is > the right word. Probably ‘consistent’ would be more appropriate. > > [Med] I changed it to “consistent” in my local copy. Thank you for catching > this. > > 3. EIF is never expanded > [Med] Fixed. > > Nits/editorial comments: > > None. > _______________________________________________ > 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
