Gen-ART LC review of draft-thaler-v6ops-teredo-extensions-07

"Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> Wed, 04 August 2010 07:45 UTC

DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type :x-mailer:thread-index:content-language; b=sKmYvuCwO+Um1zgDJ0o/WrEc4XtZgQCpn9Ouj+f2GO5AeAqPGFk9uExQsW1+dCeiJ6 o724YSioHvhZz2mwiWFLBLWd12K5xtUO7hI2vZYP5rI+2mM07W95VNTUasEEuAhwoRcS +Mua62xdP3yagmEob8PG6wliw+XxoLQ4vDAiw=
From: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
To: draft-thaler-v6ops-teredo-extensions.all@tools.ietf.org, 'General Area Review Team' <gen-art@ietf.org>
Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-thaler-v6ops-teredo-extensions-07
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 10:44:44 +0300
Message-ID: <4c591abb.cf7d0e0a.3128.ffff8faf@mx.google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0034_01CB33C2.0EE6CD70"
Thread-Index: AcszqOdDdfhuQLwqRC6WvflwWS73zQ==
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: 'IETF-Discussion list' <ietf@ietf.org>
Precedence: list

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

 

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you
may receive.

 

Document: draft-thaler-v6ops-teredo-extensions-07

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date: August 4, 2010

IETF LC End Date: 2010-08-12

IESG Telechat date: (if known)

 

Summary: This draft is roughly ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.

I have some comments:

 

Major issues: None

 

Minor issues: 

1.  In section 4.1 defines type-length-value (TLV) encoded trailers. Can new
trailers be defined later and if yes what is the procedure to do it and
assign type numbers. If new trailers are not allowed it will be good to
state it also.

2.  In section 5.6.4.1 it says that "the Alternate Address Trailer MUST
include the node's local address/port in the Alternate Address/Port list.
If the UPnP Mapped Address/Port is non-zero, the Alternate Address Trailer
MUST also include it in the list." I understood from 3.5 and 6.5 that UPnP
support on the NAT is required in which case the alternate address trailer
must have a UPnP address or is the requirement for UPnP is needed only when
the two peers are connected via more than one NAT in the private address
space as section 3.5 and 6.5 describe. Please clarify.

 

 

 

Nits/editorial comments: none

Gen-ART LC review of draft-thaler-v6ops-teredo-ex… Roni Even
Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-thaler-v6ops-tered… Jari Arkko