Re: [apps-discuss] AppsDir reivew of draft-templin-ironbis

["Fred L. Templin" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Murray,

Thank you for these comments, and apologies for the delay. In the interest of seeking
closure, please see below for proposed resolutions.

Fred
[e-mail]


>________________________________
> From: Murray S. Kucherawy <[e-mail]>
>To: [e-mail]; [e-mail] 
>Cc: [e-mail] 
>Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 12:35 AM
>Subject: AppsDir reivew of draft-templin-ironbis
> 
>I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate (appsdir) reviewer
>for this draft.  (For background on appsdir, please see
>http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate).
>
>Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may
>receive.  Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before
>posting a new version of the draft.
>
>Document: draft-templin-ironbis-12
>Title: The Intradomain Routing Overlay Network (IRON)
>Reviewer: Murray S. Kucherawy
>Review Date: February 20, 2013
>IETF Last Call Date: January 30, 2013
>IESG Telechat Date: February 21, 2013
>
>Summary: This document appears to be ready for evaluation and approval.
>However, most of the content exceeds my areas of expertise, so I have
>focused only on trying to find those parts that appear likely to affect
>applications in a direct way, or on IETF procedural points.
>
>Apologies for the tardiness of the review.
>
>Major Issues: None.  This appears like interesting work, but I infer
>from the document's content that most of the work here concerns operations
>well below and thus not visible to the application layer.
>
>Minor Issues: The [RO-CR] and [SAMPLE] references don't appear to point to
>I-Ds, though they say "Work in Progress".  If they are I-Ds, they should be
>named; if not, I don't believe those references are complete.  Where are
>they published?

These references do have corresponding I-Ds. The I-Ds will be identified
in the next document version.

>Nits: I couldn't parse the last sentence of Section 10:
>
>   IRON does not otherwise introduce any new issues to complications raised
>   for NAT traversal or for applications embedding address referrals
>   in their payload.
>
>"issues to complications raised"?

Here is a proposed rewrite:

  " IRON does not otherwise introduce any new complications for NAT traversal or
    for applications embedding address referrals in their payload."

>
>
>