Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-02

Christer Holmberg <> Thu, 17 September 2015 09:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C90D11B29CD for <>; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 02:15:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pJe2gmNmpiw3 for <>; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 02:15:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DA4E1B29C4 for <>; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 02:15:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-f79626d000004282-a5-55fa849eb07f
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id F7.57.17026.E948AF55; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 11:15:10 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 11:15:10 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <>
To: "" <>
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-02
Thread-Index: AdDxHqVrTJyipM8rTAGiZxUvIn+mUgACaYUA
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 09:15:09 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37A83C6EESESSMB209erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmpikeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZGfG3Rndey69Qg94WG4sJ62Itrr76zOLA 5LFkyU8mjy+XP7MFMEVx2aSk5mSWpRbp2yVwZfxu2c5W8KO2YuLsm8wNjI/zuxg5OSQETCTO N69gh7DFJC7cW8/WxcjFISRwlFHixeGlYAkhgcWMEgtuVXQxcnCwCVhIdP/TBgmLCGhKzF3x lgnEZhZIlJhzZTsLiC0sYCUxdfEzNogaa4nF07ZC2UYSE+bdABvJIqAqsXHbAlYQm1fAV+LB hH9sEKt8Jf7tXwQW5xTwk7j8bBPYTEag276fWgO1S1zi1pP5TBA3C0gs2XOeGcIWlXj5+B8r yJkSAkoS07amQZTnS9w7sI8ZYpWgxMmZT1gmMIrOQjJpFpKyWUjKIOI6Egt2f2KDsLUlli18 zQxjnznwmAlZfAEj+ypG0eLU4uLcdCNjvdSizOTi4vw8vbzUkk2MwEg7uOW37g7G1a8dDzEK cDAq8fA+CPsVKsSaWFZcmXuIUZqDRUmct4XpQaiQQHpiSWp2ampBalF8UWlOavEhRiYOTqkG RpePezQU7ndpSQVoH1cvvHeqv8mwJ/+sVInAhiWX2J0kv4jNefNmbfhqb6NCF++5C948SvO6 te/ITlP3pyf36P9lim8UWRLyRIPFk131dlkDW3NDdmVlmiBrzklptgVGnyI8ZjateHHV8P/F 6v1LN2rOOeiwh+dz2sWliyKy7Rf77OIOnR5ZpsRSnJFoqMVcVJwIAFKLCByVAgAA
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-02
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 09:15:17 -0000


One more comment:

Section 2 (Terminology):

Q2_1: Is there really a need to define the edge relay (ER) here?

It is not used anywhere in the document, and it creates a cross-reference with draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-2xlat - which is the document extending the SIIT mechanism, by defining the ER.



From: Gen-art [] On Behalf Of Christer Holmberg
Sent: 17. syyskuuta 2015 10:59
Subject: [Gen-art] FW: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-02

Re-send with correct IETF tools e-mail address.

From: Gen-art [] On Behalf Of Christer Holmberg
Sent: 17. syyskuuta 2015 10:56
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-02

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <>
Document:                                   draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-02.txt
Reviewer:                                     Christer Holmberg
Review Date:                               17 September 2015
IETF LC End Date:                       22 September 2015
IETF Telechat Date:                   N/A
Summary:                                     The document is well written, and almost ready for publication. However, there are a few editorial nits that I ask the author to address.
Major Issues: None
Minor Issues: None
Editorial Issues:

Section 1 (Introduction):


In a few places the 'BR' abbreviation is used, but it is not enhanced until section 2. Please enhance on first occurrence in section 1.


In a few places the 'BR' abbreviation is used, but it is not enhanced until section 2. Please enhance on first occurrence in section 1.

The text says:

"o  To ensure that that the legacy users' IPv4 addresses remain
      visible to the nodes and applications."


"This ensures that there is no loss of information; the end-user's IPv4
source address remains available to the application, allowing"

It may be obvious, but would it be possible to somehow make it more clear that the text is not (I assume) talking about the application running on the IPv4 node, but an application running in an IPv6 network?

In other parts of the document it is more clear. E.g. in section 3.1 the text says: "application running on the IPv6-only server",

Section 6 (IANA Considerations):

Q6_1: Do we normally remove the section if there are no requests from IANA? Personally I prefer to keep the explicit "This draft makes no request of the IANA." sentence.