[secdir] Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6146-bis-11 telechat Secdir review

[Peter Yee <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Jordi,

 

                Thank you for considering my comments. Responses inline below.

 

                                Kind regards,

                                -Peter

 

On 8/6/26, 1:18 AM, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]> wrote:

 

Hi Peter,

 

Tks a lot for the review.

 

See below in-line. Corrections will be in v13.

 

Regards,
Jordi

@jordipalet




El 6 ago 2026, a las 4:43, Peter Yee via Datatracker <[e-mail]> escribió:

 

Document: draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6146-bis
Title: Stateful NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
Clients to IPv4 Servers Reviewer: Peter Yee Review result: Has Nits

This draft is update to RFC 6146, which deals with NAT64. I didn't find there
to be any security concerns that weren't already handled by the existing
Security Considerations. The addition of the DNSSEC consideration was helpful.
There are a few nits that could be handled, but nothing major. [Ready with Nits]

Major concerns: None

Minor concerns: None

Nits:

General:

Change "behaviour" to "behavior" since most of the other language usage in the
document is American English.

 

Actually, what happened is that trying to improve the document I passed it thru a couple of spell checkers, and I noticed that we have most of the text as British English, so I decided to change the rest. I’m not sure now if there is any explicit IETF recommendation about using British or American, as I’m in Europe, I tend to use British. Anyway, I’m very confused because for example, even word, tell me that all is correct using British English.

 

If you can point me to anything specific I will make sure to double check with dictionaries or whatever, happy to change all back to American English if needed. In the worst case, I think this is something that can be fixed with the RFC Editor.


PY> I’m completely fine with either spelling and am only looking for consistency. I’m thinking of things like “synthesize”, “synthesizing”, “summarize”, “summarized”, and “maximize”. My understanding is that British English tends to use “ise” instead of “ize”.


There are a lot cases where "stateful NAT64 translator" is used without an
article ("the" or "a"). I started to list these, but the list was longer than I
felt worth typing in. Consider adding articles. Also, once (in Section 8.2) the

 

I’m going to fix that during the morning. I checked it, but seems missed some.

 

PY> There are times when “Stateful NAT64 translator” without an article works. Perhaps the RFC Editor will adjust things.

 

name "stateful NAT64 translator function" was used. Perhaps drop "function" to
go along with rest of the usage in the document.

 

I assume you're checking v11, as I think I corrected it already in v12. Will re-check now.


PY>Indeed, I reviewed v11. Seems like you’ve made extensive changes.


There are a few cases where the serial comma is not used (although mostly it
is). Search for "TCP and" or "TCP or" and append a comma after "TCP" to catch
most of them.

 

Corrected!

 

PY> Thank you!





Specific:

Page 5, 1st paragraph: change "preceding paragraph" to "preceding bulleted
list".

 

Done





Page 5, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: insert "some" before "new".

 

Done

 





Page 6, 2nd bullet item: append a comma after "e.g.".

 

Done




Page 13, "Filtering, Address-Dependent", 3rd sentence: change "for receiving"
to "to receive".

 

Done





Page 21, 2nd bullet item: insert "itself" before "from".

 

I believe you mean this text (looking not into v12)?

 
      -  The stateful NAT64 translator MUST limit the amount of
         resources devoted to the storage of fragmented packets in order
         to protect itself from DoS attacks.
 





Page 22, section 3.5, 2nd sentence: change "May" to "It may”.


 

Done

 


**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.