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, 4 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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/JzbW-ZVjVuD6x0EFh0ocphWx6Qc>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of
 draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-27
Precedence: list

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 al=
l 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
>=20
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area=20
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by=20
> the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just like=20
> any other last call comments.
>=20
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>=20
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>=20
> 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
>=20
> Summary:
> The document is almost ready for publication as a standard track RFC
>=20
> Major issues:
>=20
> Minor issues:
>=20
> 1. in section 4.2 "Gathering of candidates MAY also be performed by=20
> 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 orD=
ata
>     Relay Server are available." I did not see this a different ways sinc=
e
>     section 3 says "The hosts use either Control Relay Servers or Data Re=
lay
>     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 incl=
uding 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=20
> the Ta value negotiated during the base exchange as described in=20
> Section 4.4.  If neither one of the hosts announced a minimum pacing=20
> value, a value of  20 ms SHOULD be used." in section 4.4 the default valu=
e 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 n=
ot
> relevant but this is also the IANA registeration

I think it makes sense to add the missing one as you suggest, but omit it f=
rom 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=20
> 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"=20
> is the only new one. this also relates to section 7 that says that all=20
> error values in section 5.10 are new while the rest are in RFC5770.=20
> Also there is no mention in section 7 of which registry is used for the e=
rror 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
>=20
> 2. in section 2 "the base of an candidate" should be "a candidate"
>=20
> 3. In section 3 "so it is the Initiator may also have registered to a=20
> Control and/or Data Relay Server" maybe "so  the Initiator may also=20
> need to register to a Control and/or Data Relay Server"
>=20
> 4. In section 4.2 "However, it is RECOMMENDED that a Data Relay Client=20
> registers a new server reflexive candidate for each its peer for the=20
> 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=20
> 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=20
> 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