I support this moving forward, with a few small comments: 1, A few instances where "packets'" should be "packet's" throughout the doc (e.g. 8.2, 8.3)
2, Section 5.1 para 2, line 2 'as' is mis-spelt as “s”. 3, Section 8.1 "The source address and port of the packet obtained as a result of the NAPT44 process MUST correspond to the source IPv4 address and source transport port number derived to belong to the CE by means of the the MAP Basic Mapping Rule (BR)." Reads as if there is only a single transport port allocated to the client. Wouldn’t something like ‘IPv4 address and a valid source transport port...’ be more accurate? Cheers, Ian On 14 Feb 2014, at 06:49, Suresh Krishnan <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > This message starts a two week softwire working group last call on advancing > the draft about providing Mapping of Address and Port using Translation as an > Experimental RFC. The authors believe that this version has addressed all the > issues raised on the document till date. The latest version of the draft is > available at > > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-softwire-map-t-05.txt > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-t-05 > > Substantive comments and statements of support/opposition for advancing this > document should be directed to the mailing list. Editorial suggestions can be > sent directly to the authors. This last call will conclude on February 28, > 2014 > > Regards, > Suresh & Yong > > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
