Re: [Tsv-art] [v6ops] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas-11
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> Tue, 18 December 2018 09:13 UTC
Return-Path: <prvs=189008127c=jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
X-Original-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4310C1310B8; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 01:13:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=consulintel.es
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YVIZHxRkTaLt; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 01:13:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.consulintel.es (mail.consulintel.es [IPv6:2001:470:1f09:495::5]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEDFD130E66; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 01:13:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=consulintel.es; s=MDaemon; t=1545124392; x=1545729192; i=jordi.palet@consulintel.es; q=dns/txt; h=User-Agent:Date: Subject:From:To:CC:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:References: In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding; bh=/rKgz28t5iudjllh7voBsMFnbow8RIFuypCkuqgwIgo=; b=W3eh6Ksp8M3uv obl2G/BksyJxhpQdlqdKG/aOEzwV8Szh1eaQ1sDLVpGJAfTb+OnuJStFY5wstGDR Ilzlo1iwy/4ZrCaVAkuZS7AKibs3YnCYhyAjNkW0dDtEyRSHccKhB3k2dPlz1U4D s4IQJRXXdoHneUld8I4fcARSr2knwc=
X-MDAV-Result: clean
X-MDAV-Processed: mail.consulintel.es, Tue, 18 Dec 2018 10:13:12 +0100
X-Spam-Processed: mail.consulintel.es, Tue, 18 Dec 2018 10:13:11 +0100
Received: from [10.10.10.139] by mail.consulintel.es (MDaemon PRO v16.5.2) with ESMTPA id md50006075533.msg; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 10:13:10 +0100
X-MDRemoteIP: 2001:470:1f09:495:50ee:6337:e540:4ee
X-MDHelo: [10.10.10.139]
X-MDArrival-Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 10:13:10 +0100
X-Authenticated-Sender: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-Return-Path: prvs=189008127c=jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-Envelope-From: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.10.5.181209
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 10:13:06 +0100
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
To: Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com>, tsv-art@ietf.org
CC: v6ops@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas.all@ietf.org
Message-ID: <793BA514-42DC-40C3-86FD-618EB1D3590E@consulintel.es>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas-11
References: <154512080848.19310.17222140059063867521@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <154512080848.19310.17222140059063867521@ietfa.amsl.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/ZBCUQZ5vdTDCrEE9vg_7FGpdXRc>
Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] [v6ops] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas-11
X-BeenThere: tsv-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <tsv-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsv-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsv-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 09:13:18 -0000
Hi Martin, Thanks for your review! I'm working today in a new version including the comments from the SECDIR, OPSDIR and RTGDIR, so definitively will take care as well of your own comments. Responses below, in-line. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: v6ops <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org> en nombre de Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com> Fecha: martes, 18 de diciembre de 2018, 9:13 Para: <tsv-art@ietf.org> CC: <v6ops@ietf.org>, <ietf@ietf.org>, <draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas.all@ietf.org> Asunto: [v6ops] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas-11 Reviewer: Martin Stiemerling Review result: Ready with Issues This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF discussion list for information. When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review. General issues: - I have an issue with using RFC 2119 language in informative RFCs, as it is unclear what normative language means in informative documents. However, I understand that there is legacy from older documents in particular, but not limited to, RFC 7084. I think if we accepted this format, which in my opinion, even in an informative RFC, is very clarifying about what is expected from an implementor of this document, should not change our view now, unless we decide to review this in all the documents and from now on. In our case we have a "Special Note" in the section title, to remark it. - The document is in parts hard to read, even for someone who has a background in IPv4/IPv6 transition. E.g. Section 1, 2nd paragraph, about what IP version is used where. A figure could help here. Good point, definitively will include a small figure. Issues: - Remove the DEFAULT word and replace it with default. It is very confusing to add capital letters normative language here. As we have defined the "DEFAULT" word in the requirements language as well, I think it is a correct usage, in order to make it easy to differentiate it from other usages of "default" across the document. - Section 5: UPnP This section is posing requirements in an IETF document that incorporates non-IETF standards for a matter that is solely a recommendation. Can this be MUST at all? Not exactly, we are defining how the CE should react in a specific situation, but in my understanding, this is not changing the UPnP specifications. We had long debates on this in v6ops before reaching consensus this concrete text. - Section 6: Code Considerations This section is a collection of unfounded points without any hard proof that the numbers are correct and tangible. Either there is a hard example on required changes and added code size or remove it. This is an engineering document and not a marketing document, isn't it? I guess you meant here section 7. This is based on practical experience with OpenWRT and with co-authors (vendors), so very tangible, and it can be confirmed if you look at the source code. I don't think is right to have references to each of the code pieces for each transition mechanism and how they share "code parts", it will become a long document. Instead there is reference to the OpenWRT page with all the packages which allows to check exact code size if you start adding one or several mechanisms. Thanks, Martin Stiemerling _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list v6ops@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops ********************************************** 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.
- [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-v… Martin Stiemerling
- Re: [Tsv-art] [v6ops] Tsvart last call review of … JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: [Tsv-art] [v6ops] Tsvart last call review of … Warren Kumari
- Re: [Tsv-art] [v6ops] Tsvart last call review of … JORDI PALET MARTINEZ