Review of draft-ietf-behave-dccp-04

Folks,

I was asked to review draft-ietf-behave-dccp-04 as input for IESG
evaluation, and I got three comments:

(1) On the abstract:

         Developing NATs that meet this set of requirements will greatly
         increase the likelihood that applications using DCCP will
         function properly.

     Sounds a bit like DCCP would work well only if we develop NATs. ;-)
     Better reword to:

         Ensuring that NATs meet this set of requirements will greatly
         increase the likelihood that applications using DCCP will
         function properly.

(2) On requirements 1 and 3:

         REQ-1: A NAT MUST have an "Endpoint-Independent Mapping"
         behavior for DCCP.

         REQ-3: If application transparency is most important, it is
         RECOMMENDED that a NAT have an "Endpoint-independent filtering"
         behavior for DCCP.  If a more stringent filtering behavior is
         most important, it is RECOMMENDED that a NAT have an
         "Address-dependent filtering" behavior.

     These requirements are general and not specific to DCCP.  Would it
     make sense to specify them in a separate RFC for NATs in general,
     independent of any specific transport protocol?

(3) On requirement 6:

         REQ-6: If a NAT includes ALGs, it MUST NOT affect DCCP.

     This requirement is not 100% clear.  I am assuming it means:  "If a
     NAT includes ALGs, the NAT MUST NOT affect DCCP packets that are
     processed by one of those ALGs."  Suggest to reword the requirement
     in this way.

- Christian

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf