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

Michael Tuexen <tuexen@fh-muenster.de> Mon, 02 November 2020 02:23 UTC

Return-Path: <tuexen@fh-muenster.de>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55F363A0D31 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Nov 2020 18:23:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.613
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.613 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.275, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 iZIVyAlD73rp for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Nov 2020 18:23:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from drew.franken.de (drew.ipv6.franken.de [IPv6:2001:638:a02:a001:20e:cff:fe4a:feaa]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FB5C3A0D69 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Nov 2020 18:23:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:8109:1140:c3d:d543:b234:1760:3d8f] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:8109:1140:c3d:d543:b234:1760:3d8f]) (Authenticated sender: macmic) by mail-n.franken.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DAB75722C80E1; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 03:23:20 +0100 (CET)
From: Michael Tuexen <tuexen@fh-muenster.de>
Message-Id: <C0B73479-0160-433B-8240-45535985AC80@fh-muenster.de>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A3CDC79A-8727-4268-9A97-F339C696901A"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 03:23:18 +0100
In-Reply-To: <6578_1596012466_5F2137B2_6578_50_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933031507BEC@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Cc: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
References: <5D8509CA.7010206@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <A3FB9E59-C9F4-46D4-8327-BCDECAD96E8C@eggert.org> <FE044966-F0B7-4B0F-AD69-6B2F09AA0C1E@fh-muenster.de> <FC682E9C-718A-4E42-8981-87F7824CF1EE@eggert.org> <dba1cbe5-06e8-d0f1-064a-6b04a3384cec@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <6578_1596012466_5F2137B2_6578_50_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933031507BEC@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/DuDkclSm15gLzIIixkz6G04iZMc>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2020 02:23:44 -0000

> 
> On 29. Jul 2020, at 10:47, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com 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:tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Gorry
>> Fairhurst
>> Envoyé : mardi 28 juillet 2020 16:53
>> À : Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>rg>; Michael Tuexen <tuexen@fh-
>> muenster.de>
>> Cc : tsvwg@ietf.org
>> 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 <tuexen@fh-muenster.de>
>> wrote:
>>>> On 3. Oct 2019, at 13:35, Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> 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.
>