Re: [tsvwg] WGLC of draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp to CONCLUDE 22nd Aug 2020

[Maksim Proshin <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Please find below my review comments. 
I don’t have any major comments this time, only suggestions and a few typos.

1.
There are places with “must”, “should” and “may” in the text and I propose to avoid them like we did it in RFC4960bis.

2.
Section 1:
“ To date, specialized code for SCTP has not yet been added to most NAT functions so that only a translation of IP addresses is supported. The end result of this is that only one SCTP-capable host can successfully operate behind such a NAT function and this host can only be single-homed. The only alternative for supporting legacy NAT functions is to use UDP encapsulation as specified in [RFC6951].”

Perhaps the text above should be a separate paragraph.

3.
Section 3:
“The VTag is a unique 32-bit tag that must accompany any incoming SCTP packet for this association to the Internal-Address.”
I think it’s better to rephrase “this association” to “the current association” since it’s first time when it’s mentioned. Or maybe it’s better to say in the previous sentence that VTag is an association property.

4.
Section 4.3:
Perhaps it will be worth to rephrase “public Internet” and say simply “network” or so. I suppose the same feature can be used in other use cases like the mobile network.
There are a lot of other places where “Internet” is used. Not sure it’s easy to rephrase it in all places. Please consider it or maybe clarify somewhere in the beginning that it also applies to other cases and not just Internet. 

5.
Section 4.3, the first figure:
What does exactly “RestartSupported” mean here? If it’s “Disable Restart” then it’s assumed that INIT has “Disable Restart” parameter included because Create() uses it. It could be worth to add it into INIT or simply remove it from Create() to avoid any confusion. Otherwise, if it means that “Disable Restart” isn’t supported, it would be better to clearly state it.

6.
The figures don’t have a caption. It might be worth to add it.

7.
Section 4.3:
“In the case Lookup fails, the SCTP packet is dropped”
It might be better to clarify/rephrase “Lookup fails”.

8.
Section 6.2.2:
containign => containing

9.
Section 6.3.1:
“The NAT function, when processing the packet containing the INIT ACK chunk, should note in its NAT binding table that the association supports the disable restart extension.”
It’s better to refer to a section (6.3.2?) where the disable restart extension is explained.

BR, Maxim

-----Original Message-----
From: tsvwg <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Gorry Fairhurst
Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2020 1:42 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [tsvwg] WGLC of draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp to CONCLUDE 22nd Aug 2020

This email starts the WGLC for
"Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Network Address Translation Support".

The intended status is a Standards Track RFC.
The current version of the document can be found at:
https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cmaksim.proshin%40orioninc.com%7Cfeae23528d964a83e19d08d83607a4f1%7Cadbbbd8276e5495285313cc59f3c1fdd%7C0%7C0%7C637318753810432781&amp;sdata=%2BE%2FvZnKqN94XQWV6zsp33tIyXYywM2ZFSjgpoU6CE5o%3D&amp;reserved=0

Please review the latest version and please let us know any comments or suggestions. TSVWG needs reviews to ensure that the content is ready to move forward. Feedback supporting publication ("+1") is also very welcome.

Thanks

Gorry, on behalf of the TSVWG chairs