This draft is pretty close to ready. I am sending a marked-up copy with
editorial nits directly to the authors. I have the following slightly
more substantial remarks:
1. At the end of Section 3, just before the Section 3.1 heading, I
suggest adding the sentence:
"The following subsections expand on some of these points."
2. Sections 3.2 and 3.3 both suggest that flows requiring translation
and other flows need separate routing, and Section 3.4 addresses this
topic explicitly. Just to reduce the feeling of repetition while tying
things together, Section 3.4 might refer to the previous two sections.
For example, this sentence could be added to the beginning of Section 2.4:
"The two previous sections made the point that for greater
efficiency flows requiring translation should be distinguished
from other flows. Thus many operators ..."
3. The first paragraph of Section 5.1 reads:
"The MPLS/VPN CGN environment has been successfully integrated into
real network environments utilizing existing network service delivery
mechanisms. It solves many issues related to provider based
translation environments, while still being subject to problematic
behaviours inherent within NAT."
That last phrase, "... while still being subject to problematic
behaviours inherent within NAT.", led me to expect mention of unsolved
issues but none follows. Could you possibly mention a couple of those
issues at the end of Section 5.2 after you list the positive points?
Tom Taylor
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
