[IPsec] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes-05: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes-05: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Bonjour Med,

Thank you for the work put into this document. The shepherd write-up is really
terse but reflects that it was a rough consensus.

Please find below  some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated), and some nits.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

-- Abstract --
The one-line abstract does not really explain/summarize what this document is
about. E.g., nothing is mentioned about 3GPP origin. Expanding the abstract
with something like "by allowing the responder to signal to the initiator which
address families are supported".

-- Section 1 --
The sentence "When the UE  attaches the network using a WLAN access by means of
IKEv2 capabilities, there are no equivalent notification codes ..." looks
cryptic to me. What is the link with WLAN access and IKEv2 ?

-- Section 5 --
   "If a dual-stack initiator requests only an IPv6 prefix (or an IPv4
   address) but only receives IP4_ALLOWED (or IP6_ALLOWED) notification
   status type from the responder, the initiator MUST send a request for
   IPv4 address(es) (or IPv6 prefix(es))."

Is it really a "MUST" and not a "SHOULD" or even "MAY" ? A constrained UE may
have IPv6-only applications and, even if OS is dual-stack, not bothers to have
a useless IPv4 address.

The paragraph after this one mimics the 3GPP PDP behavior, but, does it make
sense for IKEv2 ?

== NITS ==

In several places, the word "responder" is misspelled.

In some places, a ':' is followed by a capitalized word which looks weird to my
French-reading eyes...