Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-27
"Roni Even (A)" <roni.even@huawei.com> Sun, 04 March 2018 07:23 UTC
Return-Path: <roni.even@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C51F7126FDC; Sat, 3 Mar 2018 23:23:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.231
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.231 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 tN8FI_4BuYlT; Sat, 3 Mar 2018 23:23:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F8791241F5; Sat, 3 Mar 2018 23:23:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml708-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 7BE8D2B0A58CA; Sun, 4 Mar 2018 07:23:06 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DGGEMM404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.212) by lhreml708-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.49) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.382.0; Sun, 4 Mar 2018 07:23:07 +0000
Received: from DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.214]) by DGGEMM404-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.3.20.212]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Sun, 4 Mar 2018 15:22:59 +0800
From: "Roni Even (A)" <roni.even@huawei.com>
To: Miika Komu <miika.komu@ericsson.com>, Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>
CC: "hipsec@ietf.org" <hipsec@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal.all@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-27
Thread-Index: AQHTsWd46nuHzli77kintpr2h56DIaO/rmhQ
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2018 07:22:59 +0000
Message-ID: <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD869DEA@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <151965127608.31482.7946240138786040730@ietfa.amsl.com> <07dbd7e2-ad0b-8483-e181-b911f3b4a7ba@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <07dbd7e2-ad0b-8483-e181-b911f3b4a7ba@ericsson.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.200.202.71]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/X-5KCp4ydQ-4xPGIpXcWxAjZUcM>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-27
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2018 07:23:12 -0000
Hi Miika, All your responses are OK with me. As for posting a new version, I think it will be good to submit one with all the changes that came in the IETF LC Roni -----Original Message----- From: Gen-art [mailto:gen-art-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Miika Komu Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2018 4:13 PM To: Roni Even; gen-art@ietf.org Cc: hipsec@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal.all@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-27 Hi Roni, thanks for the detailed review! My comments are below. On 02/26/2018 03:21 PM, Roni Even wrote: > Reviewer: Roni Even > Review result: Almost Ready > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by > the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like > any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-?? > Reviewer: Roni Even > Review Date: 2018-02-26 > IETF LC End Date: 2018-02-26 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: > The document is almost ready for publication as a standard track RFC > > Major issues: > > Minor issues: > > 1. in section 4.2 "Gathering of candidates MAY also be performed by > other means than described in this section. For example, the candidates could be > gathered as specified in Section 4.2 of [RFC5770] if STUN servers are > available, or if the host has just a single interface and no STUN orData > Relay Server are available." I did not see this a different ways since > section 3 says "The hosts use either Control Relay Servers or Data Relay > Servers (or other infrastructure including STUN or TURN servers) for > gathering the candidates." so STUN is mentioned also here. I suggest to remove the remark in parenthesis (or other infrastructure including STUN or TURN servers). Does this solve the issue? [Roni] Yes > 2. In section 4.6.2 "The connectivity check messages MUST be paced by > the Ta value negotiated during the base exchange as described in > Section 4.4. If neither one of the hosts announced a minimum pacing > value, a value of 20 ms SHOULD be used." in section 4.4 the default value is 50 ms? Good catch! I double checked this from the ICE spec, which defaults also to 50 ms. So, I change the value to 50 ms also in section 4.6.2. [Roni] OK > 3. in section 5.4 what about "ICE-STUN-UDP 2" ; I assume it is not > relevant but this is also the IANA registeration I think it makes sense to add the missing one as you suggest, but omit it from the IANA registration since it is already registered for RFC5770. [Roni] OK > 4. In section 5.5 "The TRANSACTION_PACING is a new parameter" it is > not new it is in RFC5770 You're right, I'll change this. [Roni]OK > 5. In section 5.10 "SERVER_REFLEXIVE_CANDIDATE_ALLOCATION_FAILED 63" > is the only new one. this also relates to section 7 that says that all > error values in section 5.10 are new while the rest are in RFC5770. > Also there is no mention in section 7 of which registry is used for the error values. Good catch, I'll correct these and add the IANA registry. [Roni]OK > Nits/editorial comments: > 1. Expand SPI and LSI when first appear in the document > > 2. in section 2 "the base of an candidate" should be "a candidate" > > 3. In section 3 "so it is the Initiator may also have registered to a > Control and/or Data Relay Server" maybe "so the Initiator may also > need to register to a Control and/or Data Relay Server" > > 4. In section 4.2 "However, it is RECOMMENDED that a Data Relay Client > registers a new server reflexive candidate for each its peer for the > reasons described" maybe "for each of its..." Thanks for spotting these, will fix as suggested. > 5. In section 4.2 I could not parse the sentence "where Ta is the > value used for Ta is the value used for the" Should be "where Ta is the value used for the"... > 6. in section 4.6 "as defined in section in 6.7 in [RFC7401]:" change > to "as defined in section 6.7 in [RFC7401]:" Will fix this too. Should I post a new version with the suggested changes? _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art