Re: [dhcwg] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation-07: (with COMMENT)

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

That helps, thanks!

On 27 May 2015, at 2:00, Qi Sun wrote:

> Dear Ben,
>
> Thanks for the comment. The text there is a little confusing.
>
> Would the following change be better?
>
> OLD:
> Preserving port randomization [RFC6056] may be more or less difficult
> depending on the address sharing ratio (i.e., the size of the port
> space assigned to a client).  The host can only randomize the ports
> inside a fixed port range [RFC6269].
>
> NEW:
> Preserving port randomization [RFC6056] may be more difficult
> because the host can only randomize the ports inside a fixed port
> range (see Section 13.4 of [RFC6269]).
>
>
> Thanks,
> Qi
>
> On May 27, 2015, at 9:42 AM, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation-07: No Objection
>>
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut 
>> this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>
>>
>> Please refer to 
>> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>
>>
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> In section 10.1, how could preserving port randomization become 
>> "less"
>> difficult? Presumably the assigned port range will never be larger 
>> than
>> "all the ports".
>>
>>
>>