Re: [apps-discuss] Apps-team review of draft-arkko-townsley-coexistence-04

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for your comments. We will take your suggestions into account in 
a new version. The change to the introduction section had already been 
done due to some earlier comments. (But only in local copy, not 
submitted yet.)

Jari

S Moonesamy kirjoitti:
> Hello,
>
> I have been selected as the Applications Area Review Team reviewer for 
> this draft (for background on apps-review, please see 
> http://www.apps.ietf.org/content/applications-area-review-team).
>
> 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-arkko-townsley-coexistence-04
> Reviewer: S. Moonesamy
> Review Date: September 28, 2010
> IETF Last Call Date: September 13, 2010
> IESG Telechat Date: Unknown
>
> Summary:
>
> This draft is almost ready for publication as a RFC but has a few 
> issues that should be fixed before publication.  Please refer to the 
> comment about the intended status.  The Introduction Section does not 
> reflect the text in the Abstract Section which mentions that the 
> document is being published to reflect the thinking at the time (2008).
>
> Major Issues:
>
> None
>
> Minor Issues:
>
> According to the Abstract Section:
>
>   "This document was originally created as input to the Montreal co-
>    existence interim meeting in October 2008, which led to the
>    rechartering of the Behave and Softwire working groups to take on new
>    IPv4 and IPv6 coexistence work.  This document is published as a
>    historical record of the thinking at the time."
>
> The Introduction Section should be updated to reflect what the 
> document seeks to represent, i.e. the thinking in 2008.
>
> In the Security Considerations Section:
>
>   "It is important to note that some of the solutions may have impacts
>    on how IPsec or DNS Security can work through translation devices."
>
> I suggest adding application protocols to that as the solutions may 
> have an impact on them.
>
> Nits:
>
> The intended status of this I-D is Informational.  The Abstract 
> Section mentions that:
>
>   "This document is published as a historical record of the thinking 
> at the time."
>
> In Section 2.1, please expand "GW" on first use.  In Section 2.1.2, 
> please expand "ALGs" on first use.
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
>
>