Re: [v6ops] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-deployment-07: (with COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>]

Hi!

Thanks for the updates in -08 to address  my comments.

Roman

> -----Original Message-----
> From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2019 5:31 AM
> To: Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>; Jordi Palet Martínez
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> Jordi Palet Martínez <jordi.palet=[e-mail]>;
> The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; v6ops-
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-
> nat64-deployment-07: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Thanks a lot, done already in v08.
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> @jordipalet
> 
> 
> 
> El 12/7/19 3:37, "v6ops en nombre de Roman Danyliw" <v6ops-
> [e-mail] en nombre de [e-mail]> escribió:
> 
>     Hi!
> 
>     > -----Original Message-----
>     > From: Jordi Palet Martínez [mailto:[e-mail]]
>     > Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2019 3:27 AM
>     > To: [e-mail]; Jordi Palet Martínez
>     > <jordi.palet=[e-mail]>; Roman Danyliw
>     > <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>
>     > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; v6ops-
>     > [e-mail]
>     > Subject: Re: Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-
>     > deployment-07: (with COMMENT)
>     >
>     > Hi Med,
>     >
>     > Thanks a lot! that's a very good "middle point" reference. It is only about
> US,
>     > I will try to see if there is a similar one that shows also other regions.
>     >
>     > Regards,
>     > Jordi
>     > @jordipalet
>     >
>     >
>     > El 11/7/19 9:05, "[e-mail]"
>     > <[e-mail]> escribió:
>     >
>     >     Hi Jordi, all,
>     >
>     >     One comment below.
>     >
>     >     Cheers,
>     >     Med
>     >
>     >     > -----Message d'origine-----
>     >     > De : v6ops [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Jordi Palet
>     >     > Martínez
>     >     > Envoyé : jeudi 11 juillet 2019 08:41
>     >     > À : Roman Danyliw; The IESG
>     >     > Cc : [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> v6ops-
>     >     > [e-mail]
>     >     > Objet : Re: [v6ops] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-
> v6ops-
>     >     > nat64-deployment-07: (with COMMENT)
>     >     >
>     >     > Hi Roman,
>     >     >
>     >     > Thanks a lot for your inputs.
>     >     >
>     >     > See below, in-line.
>     >     >
>     >     > Regards,
>     >     > Jordi
>     >     > @jordipalet
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     > El 11/7/19 2:44, "Roman Danyliw via Datatracker"
> <[e-mail]>
>     >     > escribió:
>     >     >
>     >     >     Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
>     >     >     draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-deployment-07: No Objection
>     >     >
>     >     >     When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to
> all
>     >     >     email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut
>     >     > this
>     >     >     introductory paragraph, however.)
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >     Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-
>     >     > criteria.html
>     >     >     for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT
> positions.
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >     The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found
> here:
>     >     >     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-
> deployment/
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>     >     >     COMMENT:
>     >     >     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>     >     >
>     >     >     (1) Section 5.  Is there an informative reference that can be made
>     >     > about the
>     >     >     successful deployment on cellular networks?
>     >     >
>     >     > Do you mean citing specific operators? I can name several in almost
>     > every
>     >     > continent, but I'm not convinced this is correct in an IETF document
> ...
>     >     >
> 
>     I'm flexible.  The text asserts this is used widely.  I was wondering if any
> informative reference could point to that.
> 
>     >     [Med] No need to be exhaustive here, I suggest to add one single
> pointer:
>     > https://www.worldipv6launch.org/major-mobile-us-networks-pass-50-
> ipv6-
>     > threshold/. Having an informative reference is helpful for this kind of
>     > statements (because otherwise, this may be considered as speculative).
>     >
>     >
>     >     >     (2) Section 7.  Consider adding an explicit statement such as the
>     >     > following
>     >     >     after the intro sentence that “no new security considerations are
>     >     > added”:
>     >     >
>     >     >     As noted in the relevant sections above, the NAT64 and DNS64
>     >     > technologies can
>     >     >     impact the efficacy or functionality of key security (i.e., DNSSEC
> and
>     >     > VPNs)
>     >     >     and privacy preserving (i.e., DNS-over-TLS and DNS-over-HTTP)
>     >     > technologies.
>     >     >
>     >     > -> I will need to reword it. This is right in the reference to DNSSEC.
>     >     > However VPNs and DNS privacy, the point is on the other way
> around
>     > (those
>     >     > technologies can avoid the DNS64 performing correctly, and thus,
> break
>     >     > NAT64).
> 
>     Right.  I botched what-breaks-what so please do reword it.
> 
>     >     >     (3) Editorial Nits
>     >     >
>     >     >     ** Section 1.  Editorial. s/today unrealistic/unrealistic today/
>     >     >
>     >     >     ** Section 5.  Typo.  s/learn he/learn the/
>     >     >
>     >     >     ** Section 5.  Editorial.  “Hundreds of millions of users” mentioned
>     >     > twice.
>     >     >
>     >     >     OLD:
>     >     >     NAT64/464XLAT has demonstrated to be a valid choice in several
>     >     > scenarios
>     >     >     (IPv6-IPv4 and IPv4-IPv6-IPv4), with hundreds of millions of users,
>     >     > being the
>     >     >     predominant mechanism in the majority of the cellular networks
>     > (which
>     >     > account
>     >     >     for hundreds of millions of users).
>     >     >
>     >     >     NEW:
>     >     >     NAT64/464XLAT has demonstrated to be a valid choice in several
>     >     > scenarios
>     >     >     (IPv6-IPv4 and IPv4-IPv6-IPv4) in cellular networks which account
> for
>     >     > hundreds
>     >     >     of millions of users.
>     >     >
>     >     > Noted and corrected all those nits in my internal version. I will wait a
>     >     > couple of days before publishing it, in case there are any further
> inputs.
> 
>     Thanks for fixing these.
> 
>     Thanks,
>     Roman
> 
>     >     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > **********************************************
>     > 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.
>     >
>     >
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     v6ops mailing list
>     [e-mail]
>     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.
> 
>