Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis-05

[<[e-mail]>]

Re-,

Thank you for the clarifications. I updated the document accordingly.

Cheers,
Med 

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : S Moonesamy [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Envoyé : vendredi 17 février 2012 08:57
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP; [e-mail]; 
> [e-mail]
> Cc : [e-mail]
> Objet : RE: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis-05
> 
> Hi Med,
> At 22:51 16-02-2012, [e-mail] wrote:
> >In some deployment it can be SPOF but in others no. This depends if 
> >the a distributed NAT model is adopted, if NAT state synchronization 
> >mechanisms are enabled, etc. Do we need to clarify this in 
> the document?
> 
> It would help the reader if that could be clarified.
> 
> >The IPv4 address pool used by the NAT64 to service IPv6 hosts. 
> >Several IPv6 hosts may share the same IPv4 address. Do you think 
> >this need a clarification in the document?
> 
> I recommend a clarification as there is a proposal about 
> shared address space.
> 
> >Sorry, but I don't understand this comment. Can you please 
> clarify? Thanks.
> 
> If we are talking about the BEHAVE WG, IETF participants either know 
> about it or can look it up.  If you say "which complies with BEHAVE 
> NAT", a wider audience would not know what BEHAVE is.  It's easier to 
> say "complies with NAT recommendations in [RFC4787][RFC5382]".
> 
> >I can do but IMHO the document does not introduce new 
> security concerns, no?
> 
> I don't think so but I'll defer to the Security Directorate on this.
> 
> Thanks for the feedback.
> 
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy 
> 
>