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

[Jordi Palet Martínez <[e-mail]>]

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 ...
    
    (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).
    
    (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.    
    



**********************************************
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.