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

[Qi Sun <[e-mail]>]

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".
> 
> 
>