Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-opsec-ip-security-05

["Vijay K. Gurbani" <[e-mail]>]

On 01/03/2011 03:23 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
> Hi, Vijay,
>
> Thanks so much for your feedback! -- Please find my response inline...

Fernando: Please see inline on those comments that require
a follow-up from me.

>> 2) S3.5.1, top of end of page 16 and top of page 17 --- "Linux (and
>>   Solaris) later set the IP Identification field on a per-IP address
>>   basis."  Which address --- source or destination?
>
> "destination" -- although "per-remote IP address" would probably be more
> correct clearer here. Thoughts?

"per remote-IP address" or "per peer address" sounds reasonable.

>> 6) S3.7 --- when discussing the Fragment Offset, is it worth
>>   stating that the Fragment Offset is measured in units of 8 octets
>>   (thereby giving the magic number 65528 = 8191*8)?
>
> This *is* mentioned in the first paragraph of Section 3.7, as follows:
>
> ---- cut here ----
>     It indicates where in the original datagram payload
>     the payload of the fragment belongs, and is measured in units of
>     eight bytes.
> ---- cut here ----
>
> So I assume no changes needed here?

Well, following the principle of being explicit with magic numbers
dictates that 65528 be explained.  Something like the following may
help in being more explicit:

   s/an offset 65528 bytes/an offset 65528 (8191*8) bytes/

Thanks for entertaining my rather late review.

Ciao,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: vkg@{alcatel-lucent.com,bell-labs.com,acm.org}
Web:   http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/