IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison-03: (with COMMENT)

Gábor LENCSE <lencse@hit.bme.hu> Sat, 07 May 2022 12:16 UTC

Return-Path: <lencse@hit.bme.hu>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF886C157902; Sat, 7 May 2022 05:16:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.745
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.745 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-1.857, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id By53N_QrbF2Z; Sat, 7 May 2022 05:16:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frogstar.hit.bme.hu (frogstar.hit.bme.hu [IPv6:2001:738:2001:4020::2c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B1C4C14F74C; Sat, 7 May 2022 05:16:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.145] (host-79-121-40-187.kabelnet.hu [79.121.40.187]) (authenticated bits=0) by frogstar.hit.bme.hu (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 247CGbLC049332 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 7 May 2022 14:16:42 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from lencse@hit.bme.hu)
X-Authentication-Warning: frogstar.hit.bme.hu: Host host-79-121-40-187.kabelnet.hu [79.121.40.187] claimed to be [192.168.1.145]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------chRfx1AfkqV6U2j0SU08QH03"
Message-ID: <e8c7b506-9b53-5601-1ddf-6980d73be7b0@hit.bme.hu>
Date: Sat, 07 May 2022 14:16:34 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison@ietf.org, v6ops-chairs@ietf.org, v6ops@ietf.org, rbonica@juniper.net
References: <165054930574.9400.16717401979063970306@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Gábor LENCSE <lencse@hit.bme.hu>
In-Reply-To: <165054930574.9400.16717401979063970306@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.103.2 at frogstar.hit.bme.hu
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Received-SPF: pass (frogstar.hit.bme.hu: authenticated connection) receiver=frogstar.hit.bme.hu; client-ip=79.121.40.187; helo=[192.168.1.145]; envelope-from=lencse@hit.bme.hu; x-software=spfmilter 2.001 http://www.acme.com/software/spfmilter/ with libspf2-1.2.10;
X-DCC--Metrics: frogstar.hit.bme.hu; whitelist
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 152.66.248.44
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/xojOg-6c_YI4MoUmUe0U2A-b5Ak>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison-03: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 May 2022 12:16:57 -0000

Dear Martin Duke,

Thank you for your review and I am sorry for my slow response. Please 
see my reply (or rather question) inline.

4/21/2022 3:55 PM keltezéssel, Martin Duke via Datatracker írta:
> Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison-03: No Objection
>
[...]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks to Brian Trammell for the tsvart review.
>
> It would be nice to at least point to draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp-23 to discuss
> the issues with SCTP and NAT.
I am glad to do so. However, I was not sure, which to section you 
recommend the pointer to be added.

I have added the following paragraph to to the end of Section 3.2:

    As stateful NAT interferes with the port numbers, please refer to
    [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-natsupp] how SCTP (Stream Control Transmission
    Protocol) NAT traversal can be handled.

Did you think of something like that?

Or could you propose a better text?

Best regards,

Gábor

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email