Return-Path: X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C90D11B29CD for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 02:15:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: 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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pJe2gmNmpiw3 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 02:15:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sessmg23.ericsson.net (sessmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DA4E1B29C4 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 02:15:12 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-f79626d000004282-a5-55fa849eb07f Received: from ESESSHC015.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sessmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id F7.57.17026.E948AF55; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 11:15:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.81]) by ESESSHC015.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.63]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 11:15:10 +0200 From: Christer Holmberg To: "gen-art@ietf.org" 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: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37A83C6E@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37A839FB@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37A839FB@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.147] 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: "draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc.all@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-02 X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org 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 --_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37A83C6EESESSMB209erics_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, 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 w= ith draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-2xlat - which is the document extending the SI= IT mechanism, by defining the ER. Regards, Christer From: Gen-art [mailto:gen-art-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christer Holmb= erg Sent: 17. syyskuuta 2015 10:59 To: gen-art@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc.all@tools.ietf.org 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 [mailto:gen-art-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christer Holmb= erg Sent: 17. syyskuuta 2015 10:56 To: gen-art@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-02.all@tools.ietf.org 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-AR= T, 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 t= hat I ask the author to address. Major Issues: None Minor Issues: None Editorial Issues: Section 1 (Introduction): --------------------------------- Q1_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. Q1_2: 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." ...and: "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 t= hat 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 te= xt 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 t= he IANA." sentence. --_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37A83C6EESESSMB209erics_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

 

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-2x= lat – which is the document extending the SIIT mechanism, by defining= the ER.

 

Regards,

 

Christer

 

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

Gen-a= rt [mailto:gen-art-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christer Holmberg
Sent: 17. syyskuuta 2015 10:59
To: gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [Gen-art] FW: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-02=

 

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

&n= bsp;

Gen-a= rt [mailto:gen-art-bounces@ietf= .org] On Behalf Of Christer Holmberg
Sent: 17. syyskuuta 2015 10:56
To: gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-02.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-02

 

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this d= raft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/Gen= Artfaq>

Document:      =             &nb= sp;            =     draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-02.txt

Reviewer:      =             &nb= sp;            =       Christer Holmberg

Review Date:     &nb= sp;            =              17= September 2015

IETF LC End Date:    &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;     22 September 2015=

IETF Telechat Date:    &n= bsp;            = ;  N/A

Summary:      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;     The document is well written, and almost read= y 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):<= /o:p>

-------------------------------= --

 

Q1_1:

 

In a few places the ‘BR&#= 8217; abbreviation is used, but it is not enhanced until section 2. Please = enhance on first occurrence in section 1.

 

 

Q1_2:

 

In a few places the ‘BR&#= 8217; 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 t= hat the legacy users' IPv4 addresses remain

      = visible to the nodes and applications.”

 

…and:

 

“This ensures that there = is no loss of information; the end-user's IPv4

source address remains availabl= e 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 run= ning 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 th= e explicit “This draft makes no request of the IANA.= ” sentence.

--_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37A83C6EESESSMB209erics_--