Reviewer: Stephen Farrell Review result: Has Issues I see one major issue:
2.1: Logging in NATs and esp. CGNs is clearly sensitive in various ways. I think it'd be ok if logging was really out of scope, however, there is a logging-enable feature, I think under-specified, (on page 63) so the statement in 2.1 seems contradictory to me - if logging is out of scope why is logging-enable a flag?. Presumably if logging-enable transitions from F->T then you turn on (some undefined kind of) logging. If this transitions from T->F then what is the implementer supposed to do? I think that illustrates the under-specification here. The simplest thing might be to really make logging out of scope here by deleting the logging-enable thing entirely. (I can imagine that reaching consensus on a logging control interface would be non-trivial, hence the suggestion to really put it out of scope rather than try specify it fully.) Just one nit: The abstract could do with a bit of re-wording as it reads awkwardly. I'd say maybe just delete the 1st sentence. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
