[Gen-art] Re: review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-rfc3682bis-09.txt

Hi Francis,

Thanks for your review.  The draft does say 'obsoletes' in the Abstract 
and includes Appendix B on Changes since RFC 3682, but I guess we can say 
this explicitly.

Wrt. your TrustRadius comment, the intent was to say that you would 
accept any value within TrustRadius from 255.  I.e., with trustradius 1, 
255-1 = 254 would be OK.  The simplest possible fix would be replacing "of 
255" with "from 255", but I'm not sure whether that would be much clearer; 
in fact the whole "TrustRadius" concept could be reworded out of the text 
given that it isn't mentioned anywhere else (anymore)

The text was:

    The main applicability of GTSM is for directly connected peers.  GTSM
    could be used for non-directly connected sessions as well, where the
    recipient would check that the TTL is within "TrustRadius" (e.g., 1)
    of 255 instead of 255. [...]

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Francis Dupont wrote:
> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
> reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
> http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
>
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> you may receive.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-rtgwg-rfc3682bis-09.txt
> Reviewer: Francis Dupont
> Review Date: 2007/06/10
> IETF LC End Date: 2007/06/15
> IESG Telechat date: not known
>
> Summary: Almost Ready
>
> Comments: I have only one major comment: the document does not explain
> it is a revision of RFC 3682, I propose to add a sentence at the
> beginning of the introduction stating that with a reference.
> Other points (minor/editorial/for the RFC editor):
> - 2 page 4 in:
>   "The possibility of denial-of-service (DoS) attack prevention,
>   however, is based on the assumption that packet classification and
>   separation of their paths is done before they go through a scarce
>   resource in the system."
>   two proposals: "is" -> "are" and "packet classification" ->
>   "classification of (the?) packets"
>
> - 2.2 page 5: (i.e., trusted) -> (i.e., are trusted)
>
> - 5.1 page 7: hasn't -> has not
>
> - 5.5 page 12: multi-hop -> multi-hop case
>
> - 6.1 page 12: add a reference for RFC 3682 here (in fact, everywhere
>   at the exception of the abstract).
>
> - A page 14: I can't parse "within "TrustRadius" (e.g., 1)
>   of 255 instead of 255"
>
> Regards
>
> Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr
>

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art