Re: [tsvwg] Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp

[[e-mail]]

Hi Michael, 

Thank you.

I checked the changes in draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp-21 and I confirm that I'm happy with the changes. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Michael Tuexen [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Envoyé : lundi 2 novembre 2020 03:23
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN <[e-mail]>
> Cc : Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Objet : Re: [tsvwg] Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp
> 
> >
> > On 29. Jul 2020, at 10:47, [e-mail] wrote:
> >
> > Hi Gorry, all,
> >
> > I support the document to advance in the publication process.
> >
> > As I may not be available in the coming weeks, please find below
> some ** minor ** comments to be considered as part of the WGLC:
> >
> > * pdf: https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-
> Reviews/blob/master/draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp-20-rev%20Med.pdf
> Hi Med,
> 
> thanks for the review. Here are the comments:
> 
> * Page 1: Fixed multi point -> multipoint
> * [BMT1]: I changed internal addresses to private-use addresses.
>           Then it is clear why RFC 6890 is cited.
> * Page 3: added 'AFTR'.
> * [BMT2]: Done.
> * Page 4: Comma added.
> * Page 4: in NAT function -> by NAT function
> * [BMT3]: this feature -> SCTP-aware NAT
> * Page 4: comma added
> * [BMT4]: the extension -> SCTP-aware NAT
> * Page 5: sent externally from behind NAT -> sent from behind NAT
> * Page 5: feature -> SCTP-aware NAT
> * [BMT5]: Done.
> * [BMT6]: Done.
> * Page 6: Internet -> Network
> * Page 6: Basic network setup -> Basic Network Setup
> * Page 6: multi point -> multipoint
> * Page 7: Changes accepted.
> * [BMT7]: Why? I consider the two NAT functions independent. So if
> one fails, the
>           communication can continue via the other path.
> * Page 8: Changes accepted.
> * [BMT8]: I don't think you gain anything from an example.
> * [BMT9]: Done.
> * [BMT10]: Done.
> * [BMT11]: Done.
> * [BMT12]: Done.
> * [BMT13]: Done.
> * [BMT14]: Using consistently host.
> * Page 9:  Accepted, except figure name/number.
> * [BMT15]: I don't think we need figure name/number.
> * [BMT16]: Done.
> * [BMT17]: Done.
> * [BMT18]: Done.
> * [BMT19]: Now using consistently host.
> * [BMT20]: Not adding name/number to figure.
> * [BMT21]: Not adding name/number to figure.
> * Page 12: Changes accepted except figure name/number.
> * Page 13: First change not accepted due to xml usage, second change
> accepted.
> * [BMT22]: Keeping text, since requested by WG Chair.
> * [BMT23]: Keeping text, since requested by WG Chair.
> * [BMT24]: Keeping text, since requested by WG Chair.
> * [BMT25]: Keeping text, since requested by WG Chair.
> * Page 18: Changes accepted.
> * BMT[26]: Done.
> * Page 19: Changes accepted.
> * Page 20: Changes accepted.
> * [BMT27]: I'm using 10.0.0.0/8 as a private network in accordance
> with RFC 6890
> * Page 33: Changes accepted.
> * Page 40: Changes accepted.
> 
> Best regards
> Michael
> > * doc: https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-
> Reviews/raw/master/draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp-20-rev%20Med.docx
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Med
> >
> >> -----Message d'origine-----
> >> De : tsvwg [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Gorry
> >> Fairhurst
> >> Envoyé : mardi 28 juillet 2020 16:53
> >> À : Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>; Michael Tuexen <tuexen@fh-
> >> muenster.de>
> >> Cc : [e-mail]
> >> Objet : Re: [tsvwg] Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp
> >>
> >> In the WG meeting today, it was suggested by the Chairs that the
> WG
> >> should proceed to a last LC of this document, which we plan to
> start
> >> this week. Thanks to all who contributed to this work over the
> years,
> >> and especially for the feedback over the last year that have
> allowed
> >> to reach this point. Please send to the list if you have
> comments.
> >>
> >> Gorry
> >>
> >> On 28/07/2020 07:58, Lars Eggert wrote:
> >>> On 2019-10-3, at 14:37, Michael Tuexen <[e-mail]>
> >> wrote:
> >>>> On 3. Oct 2019, at 13:35, Lars Eggert <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>>> it'll be nine years in November since the WG adopted this
> >> document, and almost 15 years since the first drafts were
> published.
> >> Isn't it time to abandon this effort?
> >>>> Or finish it? I need to address two sets of comments, which I
> plan
> >> to do in the next two weeks...
> >>> Just wanted to point out that it's been almost a year since my
> last
> >> email and we seem no closer to finishing this.
> >>>
> >>> Lars
> >
> >


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.