Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-eam WGLC

[Ray Hunter <[e-mail]>]

[e-mail] wrote:
> The working group last call for this draft announced last week
> continues for another week.  Please feel free to comment on it.
>

I have read this draft. It is very well written, the intention is clear, 
and I support it.


Three comments:

Comment 1
Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 call for "an IPv4 Prefix identical to that of 
the IPv4 address being translated." and "an IPv6 Prefix identical to 
that of the IPv6 address being translated"

Surely that should be a "longest-matching-prefix based on CIDR [RFC4632]"

Comment 2
Operational complexity:

Suggest Adding at the end of this paragraph
/Source address selection rules on hosts may not have enough information 
to be able to select the appropriate source address for outbound 
sessions in the presence of SIIT./


Comment 3
/  Overlapping EAMs SHOULD be considered an error, and attempts to
    insert them into the EAMT SHOULD be blocked. The behaviour of an
    SIIT implementation when overlapping EAMs are present in the EAMT is
    left undefined./

I believe that this is an unnecessary restriction for correct 
specification/operation provided CIDR/longest-matching-prefix is specified.



Nits

s/The IPv4-translatable IPv6 addresses must not only be assigned to
       the IPv6 nodes participating in SIIT/
The IPv4-translatable IPv6 addresses not only has to be assigned to
       the IPv6 nodes participating in SIIT/


s/number his entire/number their entire/
s/addresses he assigns/addresses they assign/

s/are REQUIRED to/MUST/

regards,
RayH