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

[<[e-mail]>]

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 ...
> 

[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).
> 
>     (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.
> 
>