[dispatch] AD review: draft-vanelburg-dispatch-private-network-ind
Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> Fri, 14 February 2014 22:13 UTC
Return-Path: <rlb@ipv.sx>
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51FB41A01D1 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:13:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4krlLuDxWSPh for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:13:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qa0-f43.google.com (mail-qa0-f43.google.com [209.85.216.43]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE79D1A00FA for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:13:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id o15so19003409qap.16 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:13:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=R7UJ3Hj6S07ar6U643+w0kbVwDjbafjl/UxA7b7Wq90=; b=GZfGBt7MEcLa8AkeDxDJnglSOIjXr+mfXUKB7L0UGpwx1tcwzFtkeOKfOQYTMJWZKE zHIW0Cy8vIBjnfn9MDybxRPKo3XVTyMmXxYfuKnYomFoCIng0hoqK6mgyhH2aGk/SVrF 5uvJjbotXyUn2h24Z421bILdGpC9ihSCNlkTLBaYGNQdl7tOC9NftTelkDGHJv8P8rme +lEHYhzXCayjJ9yg6wWU0TFNxflVUAcrtA5sTvXZRtR/EqPmIfoLVP8GmstQMkiD+J/x 2u0ynx10MhiAHrUU4mTY4agKK68Kwa/Xcrajb6ezWsR9bT9vFr5dTEZoqaEHWJMS+eEZ q56A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmvkM2uaXSD1edO1BxUMgbSwJfUG2n9ZJ9VZBa4FwITPjG+wD4AtgNusUH7/Y5o4rl1AfPS
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.83.112 with SMTP id i103mr16660849qgd.100.1392415985009; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:13:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.140.101.35 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:13:04 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 17:13:04 -0500
Message-ID: <CAL02cgRLLNO+eDzUYHXMMF8D_qZqhhUx1x5RbqxKhiOBNMzbDQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
To: draft-vanelburg-dispatch-private-network-ind@tools.ietf.org, DISPATCH <dispatch@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c12c602a910c04f2651c65"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/eEvIr-NS04Z2tfOhEP8LUt1b1ag
Subject: [dispatch] AD review: draft-vanelburg-dispatch-private-network-ind
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 22:13:11 -0000
I have reviewed this draft in preparation for IETF LC. Two comment to be addressed along with other LC comments: 1. In Section 3.6, there is the following sentence: """ The Spec(T) need not specify the same contents and trust domain boundaries that are used for other header fields like for example the P-Asserted-Identity. """ That reads to me as if the requirements for defining a Spec(T) for this document are different than those in RFC 3324. Would the following clarification be more accurate? """ The same information is required to specify a Spec(T) for purposes of P-Private-Network-Indication as for P-Asserted-Identity [RFC3324]. However, if a network is using P-Private-Network-Indication as well as other private headers (such as P-Asserted-Identity), the Spec(T) for each header may be different from the others. """ 2. Please reformat the IANA Considerations to more clearly specify what IANA should put in the registry. The IANA Considerations section of draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis does this well: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-13#section-7 I have requested IETF LC. Thanks, --Richard
- [dispatch] AD review: draft-vanelburg-dispatch-pr… Richard Barnes