Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9313 <draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison-04> for your review

[Gabor LENCSE <[e-mail]>]

Dear Rebecca,

All corrections are OK for me.

However, I have just noticed a bug in the text above Table 3. The text is:

"Presence or absence of _NAPT44_ per-flow state in the operator network."

But NAPT44 is just WRONG here. NAPT44 indeed happens at the customer 
side in the case of the three other solutions. But the stateful 
translation that happens in the operator network is NOT NAPT44. (In the 
case of 464XLAT it is stateful NAT64. In the case of DS-Lite it looks 
like NAPT44, but also the softwire ID is a part of the tuple.) Anyway, 
the exact type of the translation is not interesting, the point is that 
there is a per-flow state.

Could you just remove the word "NAPT44"?

OLD:

Presence or absence of _NAPT44_ per-flow state in the operator network.

NEW:

"Presence or absence of per-flow state in the operator network."

Maybe this type of correction is not simply editorial, and thus it needs 
an AD approval?

Warren, could please you approve the above change?

Best regards,

Gábor

On 9/21/2022 12:35 PM, Rebecca VanRheenen wrote:
> Hi Gábor,
>
> We have updated the document per your latest email. The list of files is below. We have two further comments:
>
>>>>> 38) <!-- [rfced] Please confirm that this reference entry is correct. We ask
>>>>> because we do not see the title on the URL provided, though we do see a
>>>>> few instances of "vpp". Also, the original text that contains the [vpp]
>>>>> citation mentions "VPP/
>>>>> fd.io
>>>>> ", which we do not see at the URL.  Note that
>>>>> the URL provided redirects to
>>>>> https://gerrit.fd.io/r/admin/repos/
>>>>>   (a
>>>>> repository of some sort). Please review and let us know if any updates
>>>>> are needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>     *  VPP/
>>>>> fd.io
>>>>>   [vpp] (MAP-BR, lwAFTR, CGN, CLAT, NAT64).
>>>>>     ...
>>>>>     [vpp]      "VPP Implementations of IPv6-only with IPv4aaS", 2022,
>>>>>                
>>>>> <https://gerrit.fd.io/r/#/admin/projects/>
>>>>> .
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>> What do you think of this one:https://wiki.fd.io/view/VPP
>>>>
>>>> It contains VPP.
>>> We are happy to update if you think this is a better URL for this reference entry. Please let us know.
>> I feel so. Of course, I cannot guarantee its stability, but it looks better to me. But I can accept, if you decide differently.
> Note that we updated to use a dated URL; this is our typical process for reference entries for for wikis as information can change. We also updated the title of the reference entry to match the title at the URL provided. Please review and let us know any objections.
>
> Current:
>     [VPP]      "VPP", July 2022,
>                <https://wiki.fd.io/index.php?title=VPP&oldid=11809>.
>
>
>> However, the second one is not. The word "Some" has been added, but the word "often" remained there. (Perhaps accidentally.)
>>
>> So please change:
>>
>> (NOW) OLD:
>>
>> Some NAT64 vendors often support direct communication
>>
>> NEW:
>>
>> Some NAT64 vendors support direct communication
> Apologies for missing that! It is correct now.
>
> __________________
>
> Updated XML file:
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9313.xml
>
> Updated output files:
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9313.txt
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9313.html
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9313.pdf
>
> Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48:
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9313-auth48diff.html  
>
> Diff files showing all changes:
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9313-diff.html  
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9313-rfcdiff.html  (side-by-side diff)
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9313-alt-diff.html  (this comprehensive diff makes viewing moved text easier)
>
> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9313
>
> Thank you,
>
> RFC Editor/rv
>
>
>
>
>> On Sep 19, 2022, at 11:18 PM, Gabor LENCSE<[e-mail]>  wrote:
>>
>> Dear Rebecca,
>>
>> Thank you for your detailed answer. Please see my answers inline.
>>
>> On 9/20/2022 3:02 AM, Rebecca VanRheenen wrote:
>>> Gábor,
>>>
>>> Thank you for the reply. We have updated the document per your responses to our questions. We have some followup questions/comments:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I have reviewed the DIFF (https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9313-diff.html  ) and I am fine with corrections, except the deletion of the Acknowledgement section. I believe that those people would deserve our thanks. So if possible, please keep that section.
>>> Please note that we did not remove the Acknowledgements section; we moved it to appear immediately before the Authors’ Addresses section per the guidelines for ordering sections in Section 4 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide”). Note that the Acknowledgments section is also unnumbered.
>> Thank you. (And sorry for not noticing it myself.)
>>
>> I will put Acknowedgments to the right place in my future Internet Drafts. :-)
>>
>>>
>>>>> In addition, Table 1 has "4-6-4 encap.". Should this read "4-in-6
>>>>> encapsulation" (per bulleted list that precedes table) or "4in6
>>>>> encapsulation"?
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, "encap." means "encapsulation". So "4in6 encapsulation" would be the best at both places.
>>> We updated Table 1 to use "4in6 encapsulation”. To clarify, we asked about this specific instance because of the change from "4-6-4” to “4in6”.
>>>
>>> OLD:
>>>    4-6-4 encap
>>>
>>> NEW:
>>>    4in6 encapsulation
>> OK.
>>
>>>>> 21) <!-- [rfced] Is "into 2x2=4 categories" correct here? Is the intent "in a 2x2
>>>>> matrix"? Please review and let us know if any updates are needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>     The five IPv4aaS technologies can be classified into 2x2=4 categories
>>>>>     on the basis of two aspects:
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>> My intent was "two times two". I think  "2x2 matrix" is a good expression.
>>>>
>>>> OLD:
>>>>
>>>>     The five IPv4aaS technologies can be classified into 2x2=4 categories
>>>>     on the basis of two aspects:
>>>>
>>>> NEW:
>>>>
>>>>     The five IPv4aaS technologies can be classified into a 2x2 matrix
>>>>     on the basis of two aspects:
>>> We have updated as above but wanted to ask if something like the following would be better. Let us know your preference.
>>>
>>> Perhaps:
>>>     The five IPv4aaS technologies can be classified
>>>     based on two aspects:
>>>
>> I think your recommendation is better, because the 2x2 matrix does not appear in the text. :-)
>>
>> It was present in an early version, and still it was in my mind as follows:
>>
>>     State in the    | Service provider network traversal technology
>>
>>     operator        |  single/double  |    encapsulation/
>>
>>     network         |   translation   |    de-encapsulation
>>
>>     ----------------+-----------------+-----------------------
>>
>>     Present         |     464XLAT     |        DS-Lite
>>
>>     ----------------+-----------------+-----------------------
>>
>>     Absent          |      MAP-T      |      MAP-E, lw4o6
>>
>> But it was replaced with a different table (Table 3) long ago.
>>
>> So please change it as you recommended.
>>
>>>>> 22) <!-- [rfced] In Table 3, will it be clear to readers what "X" stands for in
>>>>> the second row? That is, does the "X" indicate presence or absence of
>>>>> NAPT44 per-flow state in the operator network?
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>> It indicates the presence. Do you think that a "+" sign would be better?
>>> What are you thoughts of changing to “+” and also updating the first column as follows? We know it is longer, but perhaps it is also more clear?
>>>
>>> OLD:
>>>    Per-flow state in op. network
>>>
>>> NEW:
>>>    Presence (+) of Per-Flow State in the Operator Network
>>>
>> Yes, please do so.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> 36) <!-- [rfced] The URLs in the following reference entries are to personal
>>>>> webpages. May we update to use more stable URLs, perhaps the URLs that
>>>>> the DOIs point to?
>>>>>
>>>> There are two conflicting goals: open access and stability. I used the URLs pointing to my own home page the make the papers available for anyone. But perhaps it is better to use the non open access but more stable URLs.
>>> Understood. We will keep the original URLs. We ask this question but leave personal URLs (for informative references) if preferred by authors.
>> Thank you!
>>
>>>>> Note that for [REP2014], we also updated the date from 2014 to 2015 (in
>>>>> citation as well as reference entry), "37th" to "38th", and "Repas" to
>>>>> "Répás" per the DOI provided. Please let us know any objections.
>>>>>
>>>> Let me explain the situation. It is rather complicated.
>>>>
>>>> The conference where the paper was presented was held in Berlin in 2014. Sándor Répás, my PhD student was there and presented his paper. I have found a CFP:http://www.wikicfp.com/cfp/servlet/event.showcfp?eventid=35034
>>>>
>>>> However, due to some technical problems the papers of "TSP 2014 : 2014 37th International Conference on Telecommunications and Signal Processing" were not included into IEEE Xplore in 2014. Next year, the conference was in Prague. (I myself was also there.) The URL is:http://www.wikicfp.com/cfp/servlet/event.showcfp?eventid=42303
>>>>
>>>> The papers of TSP 2014 were included into IEEE Xplore in 2015 together with the TSP 2015 papers (as if they were presented in 2015), but of course they were NOT presented (again) in Prague in 2015.
>>>>
>>>> So my list of publications contains the best possible information:
>>>>
>>>> S. Répás, T. Hajas and G. Lencse, "Port Number Consumption of the NAT64 IPv6 Transition Technology", Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Telecommunications and Signal Processing (TSP 2014), (Berlin, Germany, 2014. July, 1-3.) Brno University of Technology, pp. 66-72. DOI: 10.1109/TSP.2015.7296411
>>>> Full Paper in PDF
>>>>
>>>> Even if the above DOI (containing 2015) contradicts the name of the conference (37th and TSP 2014), in fact this is complete truth. But I can live with the updated information. :-)
>>>>
>>>> And indeed, Sándor's exact family name is "Répás". I have willfully replaced the Hungarian accented letters in his name with the English approximations: "Repas". I did so in all author names of all references to use only ASCII characters.
>>> Indeed complicated! Thanks for the explanation. Based on your explanation, we reverted to 2014 and 37th but retained the DOI.
>> Perfect! Thank you.
>>
>>> Also, with v3, we are able to include non-ASCII characters in names. Please let us know if you would like to do this with any names.
>> Then please keep the current version using non-ASCII characters.
>>
>>>
>>>>> 38) <!-- [rfced] Please confirm that this reference entry is correct. We ask
>>>>> because we do not see the title on the URL provided, though we do see a
>>>>> few instances of "vpp". Also, the original text that contains the [vpp]
>>>>> citation mentions "VPP/
>>>>> fd.io
>>>>> ", which we do not see at the URL.  Note that
>>>>> the URL provided redirects to
>>>>> https://gerrit.fd.io/r/admin/repos/
>>>>>   (a
>>>>> repository of some sort). Please review and let us know if any updates
>>>>> are needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>     *  VPP/
>>>>> fd.io
>>>>>   [vpp] (MAP-BR, lwAFTR, CGN, CLAT, NAT64).
>>>>>     ...
>>>>>     [vpp]      "VPP Implementations of IPv6-only with IPv4aaS", 2022,
>>>>>                
>>>>> <https://gerrit.fd.io/r/#/admin/projects/>
>>>>> .
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>> What do you think of this one:https://wiki.fd.io/view/VPP
>>>>
>>>> It contains VPP.
>>> We are happy to update if you think this is a better URL for this reference entry. Please let us know.
>> I feel so. Of course, I cannot guarantee its stability, but it looks better to me. But I can accept, if you decide differently.
>>
>>>
>>>>>     [SNABB]    "Snabb implementation of lwAFTR", commit 1ef72ce, January
>>>>>                2022,
>>>>> <https://github.com/Igalia/snabb>
>>>>> .
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> The old title would fit better to our RFC. But I can see that Snabb implements other things, too... I can accept if you update it to "Snabb Switch: Fast open source packet processing”
>>> We will leave the original title as you state that it is a better fit for this document. Thank you for reviewing this!
>>>
>>> Note the following guidance regarding titles for this type of reference entry ("Referencing Web-Based Public Code Repositories” athttps://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#ref_repo):
>>>
>>> title — include if available (some judgement may be required on the part of the editors and authors to have a sensible title)
>>
>> Thank you for pointing to this resource:https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#ref_repo
>>
>> It will be useful for me for my later drafts!
>>
>>
>>
>> I have also checked if you performed my correction requests.
>>
>> The first one is perfect.
>>
>> However, the second one is not. The word "Some" has been added, but the word "often" remained there. (Perhaps accidentally.)
>>
>> So please change:
>>
>> (NOW) OLD:
>>
>> Some NAT64 vendors often support direct communication
>>
>> NEW:
>>
>> Some NAT64 vendors support direct communication
>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Gábor
>>
>>
>>
>>> __________________
>>>
>>> Updated XML file:
>>>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9313.xml
>>>
>>> Updated output files:
>>>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9313.txt
>>>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9313.html
>>>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9313.pdf
>>>
>>> Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48:
>>>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9313-auth48diff.html  
>>>
>>> Diff files showing all changes:
>>>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9313-diff.html  
>>>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9313-rfcdiff.html  (side-by-side diff)
>>>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9313-alt-diff.html  (this comprehensive diff makes viewing moved text easier)
>>>
>>> Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes once it has been published as an RFC.
>>>
>>> Please contact us with any further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form.  We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the publication process.
>>>
>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
>>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9313
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> RFC Editor/rv
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Sep 17, 2022, at 9:59 AM, Gabor LENCSE<[e-mail]>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear RFC Editor,
>>>>
>>>> First of all, thank you very much for your thorough work!
>>>>
>>>> I have reviewed the DIFF (https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9313-diff.html  ) and I am fine with corrections, except the deletion of the Acknowledgement section. I believe that those people would deserve our thanks. So if possible, please keep that section.
>>>>
>>>> Besides the performed and proposed corrections, I would like to ask for two further ones.
>>>>
>>>> CORRECTION REQUEST 1
>>>>
>>>> In Section 4.4.3. Implementation Code Sizes, lw4o6 is listed twice. Its second occurrence should be deleted.
>>>>
>>>> OLD:
>>>>
>>>>     are 17 kB, 35 kB, 15 kB, 35 kB, and 48 kB for 464XLAT, lw4o6, DS-
>>>>     Lite, MAP-E, MAP-T, and lw4o6, respectively (see
>>>>
>>>> NEW:
>>>>
>>>>     are 17 kB, 35 kB, 15 kB, 35 kB, and 48 kB for 464XLAT, lw4o6, DS-
>>>>     Lite, MAP-E, and MAP-T, respectively (see
>>>>
>>>> CORRECTION REQUEST 2
>>>>
>>>> OLD:
>>>>
>>>>     NAT64 vendors often support direct communication
>>>> NEW:
>>>>
>>>>     Some NAT64 vendors support direct communication
>>>> Rationale: the same wording should be used as with the other technologies.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please see my further answers inline.
>>>>
>>>> On 9/14/2022 5:56 AM,[e-mail]  wrote:t
>>>>> Authors,
>>>>>
>>>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) <!-- [rfced] Please note that the title of the document has been updated as
>>>>> follows. Abbreviations have been expanded per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC
>>>>> Style Guide"). Please review.
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>    Pros and Cons of IPv6 Transition Technologies for IPv4aaS
>>>>>
>>>>> Current:
>>>>>    Pros and Cons of IPv6 Transition Technologies for IPv4-as-a-Service (IPv4aaS)
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>> OK.
>>>>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Is "In this case" needed at the beginning of both sentences
>>>>> below?
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>    In this case, the IPv6-only client sends out IPv6 packets, and the
>>>>>    CLAT functions as an IPv6 router and the PLAT performs a stateful NAT64 for
>>>>>    these packets.  In this case, there is a single translation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>    In this case, the IPv6-only client sends out IPv6 packets, the CLAT
>>>>>    functions as an IPv6 router router, and the PLAT performs a stateful NAT64 for
>>>>>    these packets. There is a single translation.
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>> OK.
>>>>> 3) <!-- [rfced] May we update "user's equipment (UE or smartphone)" as follows?
>>>>> Or is another meaning intended?
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>     Note: in mobile networks, CLAT is commonly implemented in the user's
>>>>>     equipment (UE or smartphone), please refer to Figure 2 of [RFC6877].
>>>>>     
>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>     Note: In mobile networks, CLAT is commonly implemented in the user
>>>>>     equipment (UE) or smartphone; please refer to Figure 2 of [RFC6877].
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>> OK.
>>>>
>>>>> 4) <!-- [rfced] Please confirm that [RFC2473] and [RFC2663] are correct here. We
>>>>> believe these are okay, but we ask because we do not see "AFTR" or "4in6" in
>>>>> [RFC2473] (though we do see "encapsulation" and "decapsulation"), and we do not
>>>>> see "NAPT44" in [RFC2663] (though we do see "NAPT").
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>     The AFTR performs encapsulation/decapsulation of the 4in6
>>>>>     [RFC2473] traffic and translates the IPv4 source address in the inner
>>>>>     IPv4 packet to public IPv4 source address using a stateful NAPT44
>>>>>     [RFC2663] function.
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>> They are correct.
>>>>> 5) <!-- [rfced] Please also confirm that [RFC2663] is correct here. We do not see
>>>>> "stateful" or "NAPT44" in [RFC2663], though we do see "NAPT".
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>     The CE (Customer-Edge) router typically performs stateful NAPT44
>>>>>     [RFC2663] to translate the private IPv4 source addresses and source
>>>>>     ports into an address and port range defined by applying the MAP rule
>>>>>     to the delegated IPv6 prefix.
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>> It is correct.
>>>>> 6) <!-- [rfced] We updated the series of verbs as follows for parallel
>>>>> structure (i.e., "decapsulate...validate...calculate" rather than
>>>>> "decapsulate...validating...how to calculate"). Please review and confirm
>>>>> that the updated text retains the intended meaning.
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>    These rules determine how the MAP BR is to decapsulate
>>>>>    traffic that it receives from the client, validating the source IPv4 address
>>>>>    and transport layer ports assigned, as well as how to calculate the
>>>>>    destination IPv6 address for ingress IPv4 traffic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Current:
>>>>>    These rules determine how the MAP BR is to decapsulate traffic
>>>>>    that it receives from the client, validate the source IPv4 address and
>>>>>    transport-layer ports assigned, and calculate the destination IPv6 address
>>>>>    for ingress IPv4 traffic.
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>> OK.
>>>>> 7) <!-- [rfced] Will "to be statelessly NAT64 translated" be clear to readers?
>>>>> Would recasting the sentence be helpful?
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>     The MAP BR is
>>>>>     provisioned with the same BMR as the client, enabling the received
>>>>>     IPv6 traffic to be statelessly NAT64 translated back to the public
>>>>>     IPv4 source address used by the client.
>>>>>     
>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>     The MAP BR is
>>>>>     provisioned with the same BMR as the client, enabling the received
>>>>>     IPv6 traffic to be translated (using stateless NAT64) back to the public
>>>>>     IPv4 source address used by the client.
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>> OK.
>>>>> 8) <!-- [rfced] We see the following forms used in the document. Is one form
>>>>> preferred?
>>>>>
>>>>> 4-in-6 vs. 4in6
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, I believe that it should be 4in6 everywhere, as it is much more commonly used.
>>>>
>>>>> In addition, Table 1 has "4-6-4 encap.". Should this read "4-in-6
>>>>> encapsulation" (per bulleted list that precedes table) or "4in6
>>>>> encapsulation"?
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, "encap." means "encapsulation". So "4in6 encapsulation" would be the best at both places.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 9) <!-- [rfced] Is [RFC2473] correct here? We do not see "IP-in-IP" in [RFC2473],
>>>>> though we do see "tunneling".
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>     In the scope of this document, all of the encapsulation based
>>>>>     mechanisms use IP-in-IP tunnelling [RFC2473].
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>> It is correct.
>>>>> 10) <!--[rfced] The text that follows the colon below is very similar to text in
>>>>> Section 8.3.1 of RFC 7597. Is this meant to be a direct quote?
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>    The advice given in [RFC7597] Section 8.3.1 is applicable to all of
>>>>>    these mechanisms: It is strongly recommended that the MTU in the IPv6-only
>>>>>    domain be well managed (it should have sufficiently large MTU to support
>>>>>    tunneling and/or translation) and that the IPv6 MTU on the CE WAN-side
>>>>>    interface be set so that no fragmentation occurs within the boundary of the
>>>>>    IPv6-only domain.  -->
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, the main text is basically the same, but the original one did not contain the explanation of being well managed in parenthesis: (it should have sufficiently large MTU to support tunneling and/or translation). Perhaps this is why quotation marks were not used. Anyway, RFC 7597 is properly cited, so I hope that it is not considered plagiarism. :-)
>>>>
>>>> I would leave it as is.
>>>>
>>>>> 11) <!-- [rfced] How may we recast this sentence to improve clarity and eliminate
>>>>> the sentence fragment (i.e., text beginning with "First at...")?
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>    For the high-level solution of IPv6 service provider network
>>>>>    traversal, MAP-T uses double stateless translation.  First at the CE from IPv4
>>>>>    to IPv6 (NAT46), and then from IPv6 to IPv4 (NAT64), at the service provider
>>>>>    network.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>    For the high-level solution of IPv6 service provider network
>>>>>    traversal, MAP-T uses double stateless translation. The first translation is
>>>>>    from IPv4 to IPv6 (NAT46) at the CE, and the second translation is from IPv6
>>>>>    to IPv4 (NAT64) at the service provider network.
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>> OK.
>>>>> 12) <!-- [rfced] FYI: We updated these bullets as follows to avoid awkward
>>>>> hyphenation with the expansion of "CGN".
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>     *  CGN-based approaches (DS-Lite, 464XLAT)
>>>>>
>>>>>     *  A+P-based approaches (lw4o6, MAP-E, MAP-T)
>>>>>
>>>>> Updated:
>>>>>     *  Approaches based on Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) (DS-Lite, 464XLAT)
>>>>>
>>>>>     *  Approaches based on A+P (lw4o6, MAP-E, MAP-T)
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>> OK.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 13) <!--[rfced] How may we clarify "maintains per-session state only co-located
>>>>> devices"? Is a word missing here?
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>    In the A+P-based model, a device (usually a CE) performs stateful
>>>>>    NAPT44 and maintains per-session state only co-located devices, e.g.  in the
>>>>>    customer's home network.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>    In the A+P-based model, a device (usually a CE) performs stateful NAPT44
>>>>>    and maintains per-session state only on co-located devices, e.g., in the
>>>>>    customer's home network.
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>> It was not my text, but I would read the original as:
>>>>
>>>>    In the A+P-based model, a device (usually a CE) performs stateful
>>>>    NAPT44 and maintains per-session state only
>>>> for
>>>>   co-located devices, e.g.  in the
>>>>    customer's home network.
>>>>
>>>> I mean that the CE maintains per session state for the communication of the devices behind the CE. (Typically owned by the customer.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 14) <!-- [rfced] Will readers know what "this" refers to here? Please review this
>>>>> sentence in context and let us know if any updates are needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>     In the
>>>>>     case of 464XLAT, this can be achieved as well through EAMT (Explicit Address
>>>>>     Mapping Table) [RFC7757].
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>> As I read the paragraph, I understood that "this" referred to 1:1 mapping. However, I would begin the sentence with capital L.
>>>>
>>>> OLD:
>>>>
>>>>     lw4o6, MAP-E, and MAP-T can also be configured without IPv4 address
>>>>     sharing; see the details in Section 4.3.  However, in that case,
>>>>     there is no advantage in terms of public IPv4 address saving.  In the
>>>>     case of 464XLAT, this can also be achieved through EAMT (Explicit
>>>>     Address Mapping Table) [RFC7757].
>>>>
>>>> NEW:
>>>>
>>>>     L
>>>> w4o6, MAP-E, and MAP-T can also be configured without IPv4 address
>>>>     sharing; see the details in Section 4.3.  However, in that case,
>>>>     there is no advantage in terms of public IPv4 address saving.  In the
>>>>     case of 464XLAT,
>>>> one-to-one mapping
>>>>   can also be achieved through EAMT (Explicit
>>>>     Address Mapping Table) [RFC7757].
>>>>
>>>> I hope that is better.
>>>>
>>>>> 15) <!-- [rfced] What does 'under "port numbers"' mean here? Would "By" or
>>>>> something else be a better word choice than "under"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>     Note: under "port numbers", we mean TCP/UDP port numbers or ICMP
>>>>>     identifiers.
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, I think "by" is the perfect English word.
>>>>
>>>> (I am sorry, it was surely my text. The word "under" sounds perfect in Hungarian.)
>>>>
>>>>> 16) <!--[rfced] Will it be clear to readers what "it" refers to in the phrase
>>>>> "if it is enabled on that network or part of it"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>     In most networks, it is possible to, using existing data about flows
>>>>>     to CDNs/caches or other well-known IPv6-enabled destinations,
>>>>>     calculate the percentage of traffic that would turn into IPv6 if it
>>>>>     is enabled on that network or part of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>     In most networks, it is possible to use existing data about flows to
>>>>>     Content Delivery Networks (CDNs), caches, or other well-known
>>>>>     IPv6-enabled destinations to calculate the percentage of traffic that
>>>>>     would turn into IPv6 if IPv6 is enabled on that network or on part of it.
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>> OK.
>>>>> 17) <!-- [rfced] Please review the text starting with "in order to allow
>>>>> customers..." and let us know if updates for clarity would be helpful.
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>     From the 65,535 ports available per IPv4 address, we could even
>>>>>     consider reserving 1,024 ports, in order to allow customers that need
>>>>>     EAMT entries for incoming connections to System Ports (0-1023, also
>>>>>     called well-known ports) [RFC7605], which means 64,511 ports actually
>>>>>     available per each IPv4 address.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>     From the 65,535 ports available per IPv4 address, we could even
>>>>>     consider reserving 1,024 ports for customers that need
>>>>>     EAMT entries for incoming connections to System ports (0-1023, also
>>>>>     called "well-known ports") [RFC7605]. This means that 64,511 ports are
>>>>>     actually available for each IPv4 address.
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>> OK.
>>>>> 18) <!-- [rfced] Should "IPv4/port" and "IPv6/port" in these sentences read "IPv4
>>>>> port" and "IPv6 port" (space rather than backslash)? We see an instance of "IPv4 port"
>>>>> elsewhere in the document.
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>     It is also possible to configure specific ports mapping in 464XLAT/
>>>>>     NAT64 using EAMT [RFC7757], which means that only those ports are
>>>>>     "lost" from the pool of addresses, so there is a higher maximization
>>>>>     of the total usage of IPv4/port resources.
>>>>>     ...
>>>>>     As the deployment of IPv6 progresses, the use of NAT64, and therefore
>>>>>     of public IPv4 addresses, decreases (more IPv6/ports, less IPv4/
>>>>>     ports), so either more subscribers can be accommodated with the same
>>>>>     number of IPv4 addresses, or some of those addressed can be retired
>>>>>     from the NAT64.
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>> I think it would be better to use "IPv6 ports" and "IPv4 ports".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 19) <!--[rfced] Should "dynamically assignment of addresses" here read "dynamic
>>>>> assignment of addresses"? Also, may we move the "when" clause to the
>>>>> beginning of the sentence to improve readability?
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>    An alternative approximation for the other IPv4aaS technologies,
>>>>>    when dynamically assignment of addresses is not possible, must ensure
>>>>>    sufficient number of ports per subscriber.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>    When dynamic assignment of addresses is not possible, an
>>>>>    alternative approximation for the other IPv4aaS technologies must ensure a
>>>>>    sufficient number of ports per subscriber.
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, please perform the change.
>>>>> 20) <!-- [rfced] May we split up this long sentence as follows to improve
>>>>> readability?
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>     In that
>>>>>     case, assuming 80% of IPv6 traffic, as above, which will allow only
>>>>>     30 subscribers per each IPv4 address, so the closer approximation to
>>>>>     275,000 subscribers per our example with 464XLAT (with a /22), will
>>>>>     be using a /19, which serves 245,760 subscribers (a /19 has 8,192
>>>>>     addresses, 30 subscribers with 2,000 ports each, per address).
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>     In that
>>>>>     case, assuming 80% is IPv6 traffic (as above), only
>>>>>     30 subscribers will be allowed per each IPv4 address; thus, the closer approximation to
>>>>>     275,000 subscribers per our example with 464XLAT (with a /22) will
>>>>>     be using a /19, which serves 245,760 subscribers (a /19 has 8,192
>>>>>     addresses, 30 subscribers with 2,000 ports each, per address).
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> OK.
>>>>> 21) <!-- [rfced] Is "into 2x2=4 categories" correct here? Is the intent "in a 2x2
>>>>> matrix"? Please review and let us know if any updates are needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>     The five IPv4aaS technologies can be classified into 2x2=4 categories
>>>>>     on the basis of two aspects:
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>> My intent was "two times two". I think  "2x2 matrix" is a good expression.
>>>>
>>>> OLD:
>>>>
>>>>     The five IPv4aaS technologies can be classified into 2x2=4 categories
>>>>     on the basis of two aspects:
>>>>
>>>> NEW:
>>>>
>>>>     The five IPv4aaS technologies can be classified into a 2x2 matrix
>>>>     on the basis of two aspects:
>>>>
>>>>> 22) <!-- [rfced] In Table 3, will it be clear to readers what "X" stands for in
>>>>> the second row? That is, does the "X" indicate presence or absence of
>>>>> NAPT44 per-flow state in the operator network?
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>> It indicates the presence. Do you think that a "+" sign would be better?
>>>>> 23) <!-- [rfced] We updated "PLAT/AFTR devices" to "PLAT and AFTR devices" because of the word "respectively".
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>     464XLAT and DS-Lite use stateful NAPT at the PLAT/AFTR devices,
>>>>>     respectively.
>>>>>
>>>>> Updated:
>>>>>     464XLAT and DS-Lite use stateful NAPT at the PLAT and AFTR devices,
>>>>>     respectively.
>>>>>
>>>> OK.
>>>>>    
>>>>>
>>>>> Is "PLAT/AFTR" okay as is in these sentences, or should these also read "PLAT and AFTR"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>     Technologies utilizing DNS64 can also distribute load across PLAT/
>>>>>     AFTR devices, evenly or unevenly, by using different prefixes.
>>>>>     ...
>>>>>     Each entry in the PLAT/
>>>>>     AFTR's generates a logging entry.
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>> I can understand it with "/", but feel free to use "and" or even "or" if you think that one of them is better!
>>>>
>>>> However, I am not sure why "'s" occurs in the last quoted sentence. I think it should not.
>>>>
>>>> OLD:
>>>>
>>>> Each entry in the PLAT/
>>>>     AFTR's generates a logging entry.
>>>>
>>>> NEW:
>>>>
>>>> Each entry in the PLAT/
>>>>     AFTR generates a logging entry.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 24) <!-- [rfced] We are having trouble parsing this sentence. Please clarify
>>>>> "common CE router NAT44 implementations utilizing Netfilter,
>>>>> multiplexes".
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>     We note that common CE router NAT44 implementations utilizing
>>>>>     Netfilter, multiplexes active sessions using a 3-tuple (source
>>>>>     address, destination address, and destination port).
>>>>>     
>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>     We note that common NAT44 implementations utilizing
>>>>>     Netfilter at the CE router multiplex active sessions using a 3-tuple (source
>>>>>     address, destination address, and destination port).
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>> OK.
>>>>> 25) <!-- [rfced] Please clarify "Load balancer and firewall vendors" here. Is the
>>>>> intent "Load balancers and firewall vendors" (two separate things),
>>>>> "Vendors of load balancers and firewalls" (two types of vendors), or
>>>>> something else?
>>>>>
>>>> Vendors of load balancers and vendors of firewalls.
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>     Load balancer and firewall vendors usually support NAT64 as well,
>>>>>     while not all of them have support for the other protocols.
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>> I would write:
>>>>
>>>>     Vendors of load balancers and firewalls usually support NAT64 as well,
>>>>     while not all of them have support for the other protocols.
>>>>
>>>> But I understand the it can also be misparsed. I can live with the following, too:
>>>>
>>>>     Vendors of load balancers and vendors of firewalls usually support NAT64 as well,
>>>>     while not all of them have support for the other protocols.
>>>>
>>>> But it does not sound me very good. Perhaps:
>>>>
>>>>     Load balancers and firewalls usually support NAT64 as well,
>>>>     while not all of them have support for the other protocols.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>>>> 26) <!-- [rfced] We have updated this sentence as follows to improve
>>>>> readability. Please let us know any objections.
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>    The OpenWRT Linux based open-source OS designed for CE devices offers
>>>>>    a number of different 'opkg' packages as part of the distribution:
>>>>>
>>>>> Updated:
>>>>>    OpenWRT is a Linux-based open-source OS designed for CE devices. It offers
>>>>>    a number of different 'opkg' packages as part of the distribution:
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>> OK.
>>>>
>>>>> 27) <!-- [rfced] Please review "lw4o6 taking over in the last years". Is the
>>>>> intended meaning "deployments of lw4o6 have been rapidly increasing in
>>>>> the last few years" or something similar?
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>     Lw4o6 and DS-Lite have more deployments, with DS-Lite
>>>>>     being the most common, but lw4o6 taking over in the last years.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>     Lw4o6 and DS-Lite have more deployments, with DS-Lite
>>>>>     being the most common, but deployments of lw4o6 have been rapidly
>>>>>     increasing in the last few years.
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>> OK.
>>>>
>>>>> 28) <!-- [rfced] Please confirm that the URL here is correct. We do not see either
>>>>> sizes or technologies listed on this page.
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>     As hint to the relative complexity of the mechanisms, the following
>>>>>     code sizes are reported from the OpenWRT implementations of each
>>>>>     technology are 17kB, 35kB, 15kB, 35kB, and 48kB for 464XLAT, lw4o6,
>>>>>     DS-Lite, MAP-E, MAP-T, and lw4o6, respectively
>>>>>     (
>>>>> https://openwrt.org/packages/start
>>>>> ).
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>> I think that the URL is correct. It can be used to access OpenWRT packages.
>>>>
>>>> There are two sub URLs at this page:
>>>>
>>>> Package database of 21.02
>>>>
>>>> Overview of all available packages grouped by type: Package Index
>>>>
>>>> Comprehensive and searchable package table: Package Table
>>>>
>>>> But the second one does not work even now. So I do not recommend using any more specific URLs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please note that my "CORRECTION REQUEST 1" above refers to this place.
>>>>
>>>> NEW:
>>>>
>>>>     As hint to the relative complexity of the mechanisms, the following
>>>>     code sizes are reported from the OpenWRT implementations of each
>>>>     technology are 17kB, 35kB, 15kB, 35kB, and 48kB for 464XLAT, lw4o6,
>>>>     DS-Lite, MAP-E, and MAP-T, respectively
>>>>     (
>>>> https://openwrt.org/packages/start).
>>>>> 29) <!-- [rfced] May we update these sentences in Sections 4.5.2 and 4.5.2 (both
>>>>> introduce bulleted lists) as follows?
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>     Figures from existing deployments (end of 2018), show that the
>>>>>     typical traffic volumes in an IPv6-only cellular network, when
>>>>>     464XLAT technology is used together with DNS64, are:
>>>>>     ...
>>>>>     Figures from several existing deployments (end of 2020), mainly with
>>>>>     residential customers, show that the typical traffic volumes in an
>>>>>     IPv6-only network, when 464XLAT is used with DNS64, are in the
>>>>>     following ranges:
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>     Figures from existing deployments (through the end of 2018) show the
>>>>>     typical traffic volumes in an IPv6-only cellular network when
>>>>>     464XLAT technology is used together with DNS64:
>>>>>     ...
>>>>>     Figures from several existing deployments (through the end of 2020), mainly with
>>>>>     residential customers, show the ranges of typical traffic volumes in an
>>>>>     IPv6-only network, when 464XLAT is used with DNS64:
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>> OK.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 30) <!--[rfced] FYI - We updated the text below for clarity (i.e., changed "which"
>>>>> to "that", split into two sentences, and updated "figures" to
>>>>> "percentage"). Please review and confirm that the updated text
>>>>> accurately conveys the intended meaning.
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>    When a wireline ISP has mainly residential customers, content
>>>>>    providers and CDNs which are already IPv6 enabled (Google/Youtube, Netflix,
>>>>>    Facebook, Akamai, etc) typically account for the 65-85% of the traffic in the
>>>>>    network, so when the subscribers are IPv6 enabled, about the same figures of
>>>>>    traffic will become IPv6.
>>>>>
>>>>> Current:
>>>>>     When a wireline ISP has
>>>>>     mainly residential customers, content providers and CDNs that are
>>>>>     already IPv6 enabled (Google/YouTube, Netflix, Facebook, Akamai,
>>>>>     etc.) typically account for 65-85% of the traffic in the network.
>>>>>     Thus, when the subscribers are IPv6 enabled, about the same
>>>>>     percentage of traffic will become IPv6.
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>> OK.
>>>>
>>>>> 31) <!-- [rfced] Please review "PLAT/AFTR's generates". Is a word missing here? Or
>>>>> should "PLAT/AFTR's" read "PLAT/AFTR" (no 's)?
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>     Each entry in the PLAT/AFTR's generates a logging entry.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>     Each entry in the PLAT/AFTR's table generates a logging entry.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or:
>>>>>     Each entry in the PLAT/AFTR generates a logging entry.
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>> I can accept any of them, but I prefer the first one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 32) <!-- [rfced] Will it be clear to readers what "they" and "them" refer to here?
>>>>> Also, may we move the "because" clause to the beginning of the sentence
>>>>> to improve readability?
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>    Using those optimizations, because the NAT46 has already translated
>>>>>    the IPv4-only flow to IPv6, and the services are dual-stack, they can
>>>>>    be reached without the need to translate them back to IPv4.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>     Because the NAT46 has already translated
>>>>>     the IPv4-only flow to IPv6 and the services are dual-stack, using these
>>>>>     optimizations allows the services to
>>>>>     be reached without the need to translate the flow back to IPv4.
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>> OK.
>>>>> 33) <!-- [rfced] How may we clarify "legacy [RFC5180] compliant commercial tester
>>>>> [LEN2020a]"? What is "compliant"?
>>>>>
>>>> A tester that complies with RFC5180, but does not comply with RFC 8219.
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>     An example
>>>>>     for the latter is our stateless NAT64 measurements testing Througput
>>>>>     and Frame Loss Rate using a legacy [RFC5180] compliant commercial
>>>>>     tester [LEN2020a]
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>     An example
>>>>>     for the latter is our stateless NAT64 measurements testing Throughput
>>>>>     and Frame Loss Rate using a legacy commercial
>>>>>     tester [LEN2020a] that is compliant with [RFC5180].
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>> OK.
>>>>> 34) <!-- [rfced] In [RFC4814], we see "pseudorandom port" rather than "random
>>>>> port". Are any updates needed here?
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>     Originally, it literally followed the test
>>>>>     frame format of [RFC2544] including "hard-wired" source and
>>>>>     destination port numbers, and then it has been complemented with the
>>>>>     random port feature required by [RFC4814].
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, pseudorandom is more accurate. Not real (physical process based) random numbers are used.
>>>>
>>>> NEW:
>>>>
>>>>     Originally, it literally followed the test
>>>>     frame format of [RFC2544] including "hard-wired" source and
>>>>     destination port numbers, and then it has been complemented with the
>>>>     pseudorandom port number feature required by [RFC4814].
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 35) <!-- [rfced] Should "an own caching DNS server" here read "its own caching DNS
>>>>> server"? Or is another meaning intended?
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>     However, an
>>>>>     efficient cache poisoning attack requires that the subscriber
>>>>>     operates an own caching DNS server and the attack is performed in the
>>>>>     service provider network.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>     However, an
>>>>>     efficient cache poisoning attack requires that the subscriber
>>>>>     operates its own caching DNS server and the attack is performed in the
>>>>>     service provider network.
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>> OK.
>>>>> 36) <!-- [rfced] The URLs in the following reference entries are to personal
>>>>> webpages. May we update to use more stable URLs, perhaps the URLs that
>>>>> the DOIs point to?
>>>>>
>>>> There are two conflicting goals: open access and stability. I used the URLs pointing to my own home page the make the papers available for anyone. But perhaps it is better to use the non open access but more stable URLs.
>>>>> Note that for [REP2014], we also updated the date from 2014 to 2015 (in
>>>>> citation as well as reference entry), "37th" to "38th", and "Repas" to
>>>>> "Répás" per the DOI provided. Please let us know any objections.
>>>>>
>>>> Let me explain the situation. It is rather complicated.
>>>>
>>>> The conference where the paper was presented was held in Berlin in 2014. Sándor Répás, my PhD student was there and presented his paper. I have found a CFP:http://www.wikicfp.com/cfp/servlet/event.showcfp?eventid=35034
>>>>
>>>> However, due to some technical problems the papers of "TSP 2014 : 2014 37th International Conference on Telecommunications and Signal Processing" were not included into IEEE Xplore in 2014. Next year, the conference was in Prague. (I myself was also there.) The URL is:http://www.wikicfp.com/cfp/servlet/event.showcfp?eventid=42303
>>>>
>>>> The papers of TSP 2014 were included into IEEE Xplore in 2015 together with the TSP 2015 papers (as if they were presented in 2015), but of course they were NOT         presented (again) in Prague in 2015.
>>>>
>>>> So my list of publications contains the best possible information:
>>>>
>>>> S. Répás, T. Hajas and G. Lencse, "Port Number Consumption of the NAT64 IPv6 Transition Technology", Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Telecommunications and Signal Processing (TSP 2014), (Berlin, Germany, 2014. July, 1-3.) Brno University of Technology, pp. 66-72. DOI: 10.1109/TSP.2015.7296411
>>>> Full Paper in PDF
>>>>
>>>> Even if the above DOI (containing 2015) contradicts the name of the conference (37th and TSP 2014), in fact this is complete truth. But I can live with the updated information. :-)
>>>>
>>>> And indeed, Sándor's exact family name is "Répás". I have willfully replaced the Hungarian accented letters in his name with the English approximations: "Repas". I did so in all author names of all references to use only ASCII characters.
>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>     [LEN2018]  Lencse, G. and Y. Kadobayashi, "Methodology for the
>>>>>                identification of potential security issues of different
>>>>>                IPv6 transition technologies: Threat analysis of DNS64 and
>>>>>                stateful NAT64",  Computers & Security (Elsevier), vol.
>>>>>                77, no. 1, pp. 397-411,  DOI: 10.1016/j.cose.2018.04.012,
>>>>>                1 August 2018,
>>>>>                
>>>>> <http://www.hit.bme.hu/~lencse/publications/ECS-2018- 
>>>>> Methodology-revised.pdf>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>>     [LEN2019]  Lencse, G. and Y. Kadobayashi, "Comprehensive Survey of
>>>>>                IPv6 Transition Technologies: A Subjective Classification
>>>>>                for Security Analysis",  IEICE Transactions on
>>>>>                Communications, vol. E102-B, no.10, pp. 2021-2035.,  DOI:
>>>>>                10.1587/transcom.2018EBR0002, 1 October 2019,
>>>>>                
>>>>> <http://www.hit.bme.hu/~lencse/publications/ e102-b_10_2021.pdf>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>>     [REP2014]  Repas, S., Hajas, T., and G. Lencse, "Port number
>>>>>                consumption of the NAT64 IPv6 transition
>>>>>                technology",  Proc. 37th Internat. Conf. on
>>>>>                Telecommunications and Signal Processing (TSP 2014),
>>>>>                Berlin, Germany,  DOI: 10.1109/TSP.2015.7296411, July
>>>>>                2014,
>>>>> <http://www.hit.bme.hu/~lencse/publications/TSP- 2014-PC.pdf>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>     [LEN2018]  Lencse, G. and Y. Kadobayashi, "Methodology for the
>>>>>                identification of potential security issues of different
>>>>>                IPv6 transition technologies: Threat analysis of DNS64 and
>>>>>                stateful NAT64", Computers & Security, Vol. 77, No. 1, pp.
>>>>>                397-411, DOI 10.1016/j.cose.2018.04.012, August 2018,
>>>>>                
>>>>> <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ 
>>>>> S0167404818303663?via%3Dihub>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>>     [LEN2019]  Lencse, G. and Y. Kadobayashi, "Comprehensive Survey of
>>>>>                IPv6 Transition Technologies: A Subjective Classification
>>>>>                for Security Analysis", IEICE Transactions on
>>>>>                Communications, Vol. E102-B, No. 10, pp. 2021-2035,
>>>>>                DOI 10.1587/transcom.2018EBR0002, October2019,
>>>>>                
>>>>> <https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/transcom/E102.B/10/ 
>>>>> E102.B_2018EBR0002/_article>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>>     [REP2015]  Répás, S., Hajas, T., and G. Lencse, "Port Number
>>>>>                Consumption of the NAT64 IPv6 Transition Technology", 38th
>>>>>                International Conference on Telecommunications and Signal
>>>>>                Processing, DOI 10.1109/TSP.2015.7296411, 2015,
>>>>>                
>>>>> <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7296411>
>>>>> .	
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I can accept all.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 37) <!-- [rfced] We have updated these references as follows. Would it be helpful
>>>>> to update the [MEX2022] citation tag to something more descriptive,
>>>>> perhaps [JOOL-MAPT]?
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>     [jool]     NIC.MX, "Open Source SIIT and NAT64 for Linux", 2022,
>>>>>                
>>>>> <http://www.jool.mx>
>>>>> .
>>>>> 	      ...
>>>>>     [MEX2022]  Jool Developers, "Jool: Siit and NAT64",  Documentation of
>>>>>                Jool MAP-T implementation, 2022,
>>>>>                
>>>>> <https://www.jool.mx/en/run-mapt.html>
>>>>> .
>>>>> 	
>>>>> Updated:
>>>>>     [JOOL]     "Jool: SIIT & NAT64",
>>>>> <http://www.jool.mx>
>>>>> .
>>>>>     ...
>>>>>     [MEX2022]  "MAP-T Run",
>>>>> <https://www.jool.mx/en/run-mapt.html>
>>>>> .
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>> OK.
>>>>> 38) <!-- [rfced] Please confirm that this reference entry is correct. We ask
>>>>> because we do not see the title on the URL provided, though we do see a
>>>>> few instances of "vpp". Also, the original text that contains the [vpp]
>>>>> citation mentions "VPP/fd.io", which we do not see at the URL.  Note that
>>>>> the URL provided redirects to
>>>>> https://gerrit.fd.io/r/admin/repos/
>>>>>   (a
>>>>> repository of some sort). Please review and let us know if any updates
>>>>> are needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>     *  VPP/fd.io [vpp] (MAP-BR, lwAFTR, CGN, CLAT, NAT64).
>>>>>     ...
>>>>>     [vpp]      "VPP Implementations of IPv6-only with IPv4aaS", 2022,
>>>>>                
>>>>> <https://gerrit.fd.io/r/#/admin/projects/>
>>>>> .
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>> What do you think of this one:https://wiki.fd.io/view/VPP
>>>>
>>>> It contains VPP.
>>>>
>>>>> 39) <!-- [rfced] We have updated these references as follows per the guidance on
>>>>> "Referencing Web-Based Public Code Repositories (e.g., GitHub)" at
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#ref_repo
>>>>> . Please review this
>>>>> website and the updated reference entries to confirm accuracy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that we did not update the title of either reference entry. For [SNABB],
>>>>> is the title okay as is? Or would "Snabb Switch: Fast open source packet"
>>>>> (which appears under "About" at
>>>>> <https://github.com/Igalia/snabb>
>>>>> ) be better?
>>>>> We see that the title of the [SIITPERF] entry appears under "About".
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>     [SIITperf] Lencse, G., "Siitperf: an RFC 8219 compliant SIIT
>>>>>                (stateless NAT64) tester", November 2019,
>>>>>                
>>>>> <https://github.com/lencsegabor/siitperf>
>>>>> .
>>>>>     ...	
>>>>>     [snabb]    Igalia, "Snabb implementation of lwAFTR", 2022,
>>>>>                
>>>>> <https://github.com/Igalia/snabb>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>> Updated:
>>>>>     [SIITPERF] "Siitperf: an RFC 8219 compliant SIIT (stateless NAT64)
>>>>>                tester", commit bdce0f, February 2021,
>>>>>                
>>>>> <https://github.com/lencsegabor/siitperf>.
>>>> Perfect!
>>>>
>>>> Including the commit was a very good idea! Especially because I plan to merge the "stateful" branch into the "master" branch. With the commit number, everything will remain clear also after the merge. :-)
>>>>
>>>>>     [SNABB]    "Snabb implementation of lwAFTR", commit 1ef72ce, January
>>>>>                2022,
>>>>> <https://github.com/Igalia/snabb>
>>>>> .
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> The old title would fit better to our RFC. But I can see that Snabb implements other things, too... I can accept if you update it to "Snabb Switch: Fast open source packet processing"
>>>>> 40) <!-- [rfced] Is the citation [aftr] correct here? We ask because we do not see
>>>>> AFTR mentioned on the link provided in the corresponding reference entry
>>>>> for [aftr]. Please review.
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>     *  AFTR [aftr] (DSLite AFTR).
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, we do not see the title of the reference entry below listed at the
>>>>> provided URL. The URL goes to the ISC downloads page that provides downloads
>>>>> for BIND 9, ISC DHCP, Kea, and Stork. Is the intent to cite one of these? Is
>>>>> the current title of this reference okay as is, or is an update needed?
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>     [aftr]     ISC, "ISC implementation of AFTR", 2022,
>>>>>                
>>>>> <https://www.isc.org/downloads/>
>>>>> .
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>> As far as I remember, AFTR was linked to this page. But they have changed this page this year. It did not look like this. :-(
>>>>
>>>> I have found the repository here:https://downloads.isc.org/isc/aftr/  -- Please update         the reference to this page. Although I am not sure, how long it will be available. I am also not sure if this about 12-year-old software would compile now. Perhaps yes, under Debian 6. :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 41) <!-- [rfced] Terminology
>>>>>
>>>>> a) We see both "tester" and "Tester" in the document. Should the capialization
>>>>> be consistent?
>>>>>
>>>> Perhaps yes. I would prefer Tester, as I usually use so in my BMWG draft, but I can accept the other version, too. (But I would not touch paper titles.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> b) FYI - we see both "well-known ports" and "Well-Known-Ports" in the document.
>>>>> We updated to "well-known ports" as that form is more common in the RFC
>>>>> Series.
>>>>>
>>>> OK.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> c) We expanded the following acronyms as shown below. Please let us know
>>>>> any objections.
>>>>>
>>>>> Content Delivery Network (CDN) - per expansion in RFC 8683
>>>>>
>>>>> Inter-Packet Delay Variation (IPDV)
>>>>>
>>>> OK.
>>>>>
>>>>> d) How should the acronym "MAP" be expanded when not in the context of "MAP-E" or "MAP-T"?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I did not find any occurrence of "MAP" which is not in the context of MAP-E or MAP-T.
>>>>
>>>> (E.g. "MAP rules" is also in this context.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> e) Please review the following terms that use the backslash. Are these okay as
>>>>> is, or would updating to use commas with "and" (or "or") be better?
>>>>>
>>>>> lwAFTR/BR
>>>>> PLAT/AFTR/BR
>>>>> PLAT/AFTR/lwAFTR/BR
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>>  From my side, they are OK with a "/". But if you prefer other solutions from editorial point of view, I can accept it, too.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 42) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online
>>>>> Style Guide
>>>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
>>>>>
>>>>> and let us know if any changes are needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> For example, please consider whether the following should be updated:
>>>>>
>>>>> native
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>> I am fine with it as is.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 43) <!-- [rfced] XML formatting
>>>>>
>>>>> a) Please review whether any of the notes in this document
>>>>> should be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a container for
>>>>> content that is semantically less important or tangential to the
>>>>> content that surrounds it" (
>>>>> https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/xml2rfc-doc.html#name-aside-2
>>>>> ).
>>>>>
>>>> I am not aware any of it.
>>>>> b) Would it be helpful to use the <eref> element for sohu.com and
>>>>> twitter.com here to create links in the html and pdf output formats? Note that
>>>>> we would need to update to
>>>>> <https://www.sohu.com/>  and<https://twitter.com/>
>>>>> ,
>>>>> respectively.
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>     For example, under
>>>>>     certain conditions, 120-160 ports were used (URL: sohu.com, browser:
>>>>>     Firefox under Ubuntu Linux), and in some other cases it was only 3-12
>>>>>     ports (URL: twitter.com, browser: Iceweasel under Debian Linux).
>>>>>
>>>> They are used so in the original paper, therefore, I would keep them as they are. They are used as examples. There is no point in making them working links.
>>>>
>>>>> c) Some author comments are present in the XML. Please confirm that
>>>>> no updates related to these comments are outstanding. Note that the
>>>>> comments will be deleted prior to publication.
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>> It is OK the delete them.
>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>
>>>>> RFC Editor/st/mc/rv
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Thank you very much for your meticulous work. I have learnt a lot from this review!
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Gábor
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 13, 2022, at 1:46 PM,
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>   wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>>>>>
>>>>> Updated 2022/09/13
>>>>>
>>>>> RFC Author(s):
>>>>> --------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Instructions for Completing AUTH48
>>>>>
>>>>> Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and
>>>>> approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.
>>>>> If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies
>>>>> available as listed in the FAQ (
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/
>>>>> ).
>>>>>
>>>>> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties
>>>>> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing
>>>>> your approval.
>>>>>
>>>>> Planning your review
>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Please review the following aspects of your document:
>>>>>
>>>>> *  RFC Editor questions
>>>>>
>>>>>    Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor
>>>>>    that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as
>>>>>    follows:
>>>>>
>>>>>    <!-- [rfced] ... -->
>>>>>
>>>>>    These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
>>>>>
>>>>> *  Changes submitted by coauthors
>>>>>
>>>>>    Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
>>>>>    coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you
>>>>>    agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
>>>>>
>>>>> *  Content
>>>>>
>>>>>    Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot
>>>>>    change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention to:
>>>>>    - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
>>>>>    - contact information
>>>>>    - references
>>>>>
>>>>> *  Copyright notices and legends
>>>>>
>>>>>    Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
>>>>>    RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
>>>>>    (TLP –
>>>>> https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/
>>>>> ).
>>>>>
>>>>> *  Semantic markup
>>>>>
>>>>>    Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of
>>>>>    content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode>
>>>>>    and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at
>>>>>    
>>>>> <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>> *  Formatted output
>>>>>
>>>>>    Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
>>>>>    formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is
>>>>>    reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting
>>>>>    limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Submitting changes
>>>>> ------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all
>>>>> the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties
>>>>> include:
>>>>>
>>>>>    *  your coauthors
>>>>>
>>>>>    *
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>   (the RPC team)
>>>>>
>>>>>    *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g.,
>>>>>       IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the
>>>>>       responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
>>>>>
>>>>>    *
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> , which is a new archival mailing list
>>>>>       to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion
>>>>>       list:
>>>>>
>>>>>      *  More info:
>>>>>         
>>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>      *  The archive itself:
>>>>>         
>>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>      *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out
>>>>>         of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
>>>>>         If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you
>>>>>         have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded,
>>>>>         
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>   will be re-added to the CC list and
>>>>>         its addition will be noted at the top of the message.
>>>>>
>>>>> You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
>>>>>
>>>>> An update to the provided XML file
>>>>> — OR —
>>>>> An explicit list of changes in this format
>>>>>
>>>>> Section # (or indicate Global)
>>>>>
>>>>> OLD:
>>>>> old text
>>>>>
>>>>> NEW:
>>>>> new text
>>>>>
>>>>> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit
>>>>> list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
>>>>>
>>>>> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
>>>>> beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text,
>>>>> and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in
>>>>> the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Approving for publication
>>>>> --------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
>>>>> that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
>>>>> as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Files
>>>>> -----
>>>>>
>>>>> The files are available here:
>>>>>    
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9313.xml
>>>>>
>>>>>    
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9313.html
>>>>>
>>>>>    
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9313.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>>    
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9313.txt
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Diff file of the text:
>>>>>    
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9313-diff.html
>>>>>
>>>>>    
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9313-rfcdiff.html
>>>>>   (side by side)
>>>>>
>>>>> Alt-diff of the text (allows you to more easily view changes
>>>>> where text has been deleted or moved):
>>>>>    
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9313-alt-diff.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Diff of the XML:
>>>>>    
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9313-xmldiff1.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own
>>>>> diff files of the XML.
>>>>>
>>>>> Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
>>>>>    
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9313.original.v2v3.xml
>>>>>   
>>>>>
>>>>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
>>>>> only:
>>>>>    
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9313.form.xml
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tracking progress
>>>>> -----------------
>>>>>
>>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>>>>    
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9313
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>>>>>
>>>>> RFC Editor
>>>>>
>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>> RFC9313 (draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison-04)
>>>>>
>>>>> Title            : Pros and Cons of IPv6 Transition Technologies for IPv4aaS
>>>>> Author(s)        : G. Lencse, J. Martinez, L. Howard, R. Patterson, I. Farrer
>>>>> WG Chair(s)      : Ron Bonica, XiPeng Xiao
>>>>>
>>>>> Area Director(s) : Warren Kumari, Robert Wilton
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>