[BEHAVE] AD review of LSN requirements draft

[Wesley Eddy <[e-mail]>]

Hi, I've completed an AD review of the LSN requirements draft.

I think it's generally in pretty good shape, but do have some
comments that we should at least talk about before going forward.
This could require a small update.  I also understand from the
mailing list that Simon has a proposed reversal of one of the
previous changes, and I think he's totally correct.  So, we
should get a revision anyways before moving on.

Here are my comments:

(1) it strongly seems like RFC 6264 should be mentioned here;
it would probably work in the 2nd paragraph of the Introduction
about providing IPv6 services alongside IPv4 CGN

(2) it seems like it should be really clear in section 1 that
this document isn't considering multi-subscriber IPv6 NPT or
dual layers of IPv6 NPT as being a CGN, only multi-subscriber
IPv4 NAT and dual layers of IPv4 NAT

(3) Note that the sub-requirements for individual NAT
behavior RFCs are labelled "REQ-1", "REQ-2", etc.
duplicatively with the higher-level REQ-1, REQ-2, etc.

(4) Several of the requirements have "SHOULD" in them,
which makes them more of a recommendation than an
actual requirement (those are MUSTs!); if we want to
retain "SHOULD"s, then we probably need to suggest
why they aren't MUSTs by giving some cogent example
of a case where it would be acceptable not to implement
the feature.  (this applies to the SHOULD NOTs as well)

(5) Should there be a requirement to support use of
the prefix allocated via RFC 6598?

(6) I think it would be good to have an advisory
reference to the issues in:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-donley-nat444-impacts-03
and whether or not following the recommendations in this
document helps to avoid such issues.  The RFC 6269
reference already in the introduction is okay, but it
probably glosses over this topic too quickly.

(7) I suspect that we should be more clear in the abstract
and introduction that this is not an IETF endorsement of
CGN or a real specification for CGN, but rather just a
minimal set of requirements that we believe need to be
followed for implementing CGNs on the Internet; CGNs are
still not something we have consensus on being desirable
for the Internet.

-- 
Wes Eddy
MTI Systems