Re-, Please see inline.
Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Benjamin Kaduk [mailto:ka...@mit.edu] > Envoyé : mardi 25 septembre 2018 23:35 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN > Cc : The IESG; draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-y...@ietf.org; Joe Clarke; opsawg- > cha...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org > Objet : Re: Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang-16: > (with COMMENT) > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 09:27:08PM +0000, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: > > Hi Benjamin, > > > > Thank you for the comments. > > > > Please see inline. > > Also inline. > > > Cheers, > > Med > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > > De : Benjamin Kaduk [mailto:ka...@mit.edu] > > > Envoyé : mardi 25 septembre 2018 20:31 > > > À : The IESG > > > Cc : draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-y...@ietf.org; Joe Clarke; opsawg- > cha...@ietf.org; > > > jcla...@cisco.com; opsawg@ietf.org > > > Objet : Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang-16: > (with > > > COMMENT) > > > > > > Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for > > > draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang-16: No Objection > > > > > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > > > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > > > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > > > > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > > > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > > > > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang/ > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > COMMENT: > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Thanks for the easy-to-read document! I just have a few comments and > > > potential nits > > > I noticed. > > > > > > It was somewhat interesting to me that basically everything is config rw, > > > including ports and > > > addresses that would normally be assigned internally by the NAT, but I > don't > > > see this as > > > problematic. > > > > [Med] This is a good point. Actually, we are using rw because the same > structure is also used for static mappings. That is, the external port and IP > address are also provided. > > I had even internalized that, just somehow didn't make the connection. > Thanks for setting me straight. > > > > > > > Section 2.1 > > > > > > Considerations about instructing explicit > > > dynamic means (e.g., [RFC6887], [RFC6736], or [RFC8045]) are out of > > > scope. [...] > > > > > > I'm having trouble parsing this; is it maybe "instructing by explicit > > > dynamic means" or "explicit dynamic mappings"? > > > > [Med] Changed to "Considerations about instructing by explicit dynamic > means". Thanks. > > > > > > > > Section 3 > > > > > > What's the relationship between hold-down-timeout and hold-down-max -- > that > > > is, if the maximum number of ports in the pool gets hit, to the oldest > > > ports in the pool get ejected even if they haven't timed out, or what > > > happens? > > > > > > > [Med] deallocated ports are added to the hold-down pool till a max is > reached; ports are removed from that pool upon the expiry of the hold-down- > timeout. New deallocated ports cannot be added if the pool reaches its max. > > Okay, so if the hold-down pool is full and a mapping's expiration timer > expires, does that port immediately become free to use [Med] Yes. , or does the mapping > persist until there is space in the hold-down pool, or something else? > > > > I don't expect this to need to be in the document, but I'm curious what > the > > > use case for the all-algs-enable leaf is. > > > > [Med] This is to allow to enable all "default" ALGs that are widely > supported (FTP, RSTP, in particular). This is an optimization as each of the > ALGs can be enabled separately. > > Okay. I guess I don't quite see how this implies the semantics that it > overrides the per-ALG settings, but it's documented well enough that I > don't object to it being this way. > > Thanks! > > -Benjamin > > > > > > > I may be confused, but is the ordering relationship between low-threshold > > > and high-threshold correct? From the description it would seem like we > > > need low < high, but I'm reading the text as requiring low >= high. > > > Also, the error-message for that "must" stanza talks about port numbers, > > > not percentage thresholds. > > > > [Med] Good c atch. You are completely right. Fixed. > > > > > > > > container connection-limits { > > > [...] > > > list limit-per-protocol { > > > [...] > > > leaf limit { > > > type uint32; > > > description > > > "Rate-limit the number of protocol-specific mappings > > > and sessions per instance."; > > > > > > This is a maximum, not a rate-limit, I think? > > > > [Med] Yes. Fixed. > > > > > > > > Section A.6 > > > > > > EAMs may be enabled jointly with statefull NAT64. This example shows > > > a NAT64 function that supports static mappings: > > > > > > nit: "stateful" > > > > [Med] Fixed. Thanks > > > > > _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
