Hi Peter, Thanks a lot for your review. I will ask the authors to address your comments in the next version of the draft.
Regards Suresh On 03/09/2013 03:13 AM, Peter Yee wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq> > > Document: draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis-05 > Reviewer: Peter Yee > Review Date: Mar-08-2013 > IETF LC End Date: Mar-08-2013 > IESG Telechat date: TBD > > Summary: This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in > the review. [Ready with issues.] > > This draft catalogs and analyzes various means of supplying a host > identifier to a > > remote server when Carrier Grade NAT or similar host obscuring technology > is in use. > > General: There were sentences in the draft that I could not parse even in > the context > of surrounding text. That's primarily why I'm marking this draft as > "Ready with > issues". These sentences are supplied below. Mostly, the document has a > fair number > of nits. The general concept is fine. > > General: hyphenate uses of "address sharing" when it used as an adjective. > For > example, "address-sharing device". > > General: expand acronyms on first use except if they are really well known > in > our community (e.g., TCP/IP) or where they appear in the abstract. > Examples of > acronyms in need of expansion are HIP, XFF, S. > > General: You will probably want to resolve Internet Draft references to > something > more permanent. > > General: The term "broken" should be replaced with something more specific > or useful. > I've made some suggestions below. > > Section 1, 2nd paragraph, last sentence: delete "an" before "information". > > Section 1, 3rd paragraph: change "are" to "include". > > Section 1, 3rd paragraph: change "customers unsatisfaction" to "and > customers' dissatisfaction". > > Section 2, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: delete "an" before "extra". > Change "than" to > "beyond". > > Section 2, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: replace this sentence with "We > call this > information the HOST_ID." > > Section 2, 2nd paragraph: add a serial comma after "subscriber". Serial > comma use in > the draft was inconsistent. > > Section 2, 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence: I'm not sure why the HOST_ID and > public IP address would be "relatively" unique. Assuming that HOST_IDs > are unique amongst > the hosts hidden behind the public IP address and the public IP address is > unique, > I would have thought that the combination was globally unique. My > confusion may arise > from the 4th sentence which is incomplete. Perhaps those two sentences > could be > rewritten for clarity. > > Section 2, 4th paragraph, 1st sentence: change "put" to "conveyed". > > Section 2, 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence: change "put" to "conveyed". > > > Section 3, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: considering using > "identifiability" instead of > "uniqueness". > > Section 3, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: replace "which" with "what". > > Section 3,1, 4th paragraph: add a comma after "re-write". Change > "re-write" to > "rewrite". > > Section 3.1, 5th paragraph: I don't quite follow what's being said here. > Is the point that the address-sharing function should reveal the same > HOST_ID for any given host > regardless of what layer or mechanism that HOST_ID is being conveyed > across? How does > this relate to interference between HOST_IDs? > > Section 4.1.1, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: delete "an" before > "information". > > Section 4.1.1, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: insert ", there are" after > "hence". > > Section 4.1.1, 4th paragraph, consider replacing with: "Address-sharing > devices using > this solution would be required to indicate that out of band, possibly > using a special > DNS record." > > Section 4.1.2, 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence: add a comma after "scenario". > Change "broken" to "ill-advised". > > Section 4.2.1, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: add "A " at the beginning of > the sentence. > > Section 4.2.1, 1st paragraph, 4th sentence: rewrite as "This IP option > allows the > conveyance of an IPv4 address, an IPv6 prefix, a GRE key, an IPv6 Flow > Label, etc." > > Section 4.2.1, 2nd paragraph: insert "an" before "IP". > > Section 4.2.2, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: change "for" to "to". > > Section 4.2.2, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: use of the term "filter" in > this sentence > is not clear. Do you mean that that routes and middleboxes remove the IP > options? Or > that they remove packets with IP options? Or that they take other actions > based on the > presence of IP options? Please clarify. > > Section 4.2.2, 2nd paragraph: replace "As a" with "In". Define > "host-hint" somewhere. > Is it meant to be equivalent to HOST_ID? > > Section 4.3.1, 3rd sentence: change "their" to "its" both places in the > sentence. > Insert "or" before "subscriber". > > Section 4.3.2, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: insert "a" before "HOST_ID" > > Section 4.3.2, 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence: change "in host" to "on the > host". Insert > "the" before "address", and add a comma after "function". > > Section 4.3.2, 1st bullet item: this is the IETF. We don't need no > stinkin' OSI! :-) > > Section 4.3.2, 1st bullet item, 2nd sentence: replace the sentence with > "Moreover, an > updated version of [I-D.wing-nat-reveal-option] no longer allows conveyance > of a full IP address as the HOST_ID is encoded in 16 bits." > > Section 4.3.2, 2nd bullet item, 1st sentence: delete the comma after > "limited". > > Section 4.3.2, 2nd bullet item, 4th sentence: delete the comma after "ACK". > > Section 4.3.2, 2nd bullet item, 5th sentence: move "only" before "allows". > Change > "to enclose" to "enclosing". > > Section 4.3.2, 3rd bullet item, 3rd sentence: the characterization of > HOST_ID as > leaked information seems pejorative. And how is a "communication leg" > defined? > Is this a standard term for communications between a CGN and a remote > server, or for > other backbone-carried communications? > > Section 4.3.2, 4th bullet item, append a comma after "particular". > > Section 4.3.2, 5th bullet item, 1st sentence: replace "to" with "the". > Change > "preserve" to "preservation of". > > Section 4.3.2, 5th bullet item, 3rd sentence: change "to reveal" to > "revealing". > > Section 4.4.1, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: move "not" before "to". > Change "at" to > "within". Change "which" to "that". > > Section 4.4.1, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: change "This" to "The". > Append "of the > conveyed information" after "format". > > Section 4.4.1, 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence: change "their" to "its". > > Section 4.4.1, 3rd paragraph: insert "the" before "X-Forwarded-For". > > Section 4.4.2, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: delete "the" before "address". > > Section 4.4.2, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: specify by whom the initiative > was launched. > > Section 4.4.2, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: append "who are" after > "Wikipedia". > > Section 4.4.2, 4th paragraph, 1st sentence: would "transited" be more > appropriate than > "crossed"? Insert "the" before "Forwarded". > > Section 4.4.2, 6th paragraph: change "implementation" to > "implementations". And that > begs the question: implementations of what? Delete "some" before > "parsing". Insert > "an" before "XFF". > > Section 4.4.2, 7th paragraph: why is this "may be broken"? Either the > Forwarded header can be injected or it cannot. Under encryption, the only > way I can see to insert the > header is if the encrypted TLS session is passing through a > man-in-the-middle proxy > that is spoofing both of ends of the communication in order to be able to > transparently > decrypt the traffic. > > Section 4.5.1, 1st paragraph, 4th sentence: insert "The" before '"PROXY"'. > > Section 4.5.2, 1st paragraph, last sentence: change "raise" to "arise". > Append a > comma after "firewalls". > > Section 4.5.2, 2nd paragraph: change "broken" to "infeasible". Change > "can not" to "cannot". > > Section 4.6.1, 3rd paragraph: replace "do" with "are". Change "require" > to "required". > > Section 4.6.1, 4th paragraph: insert "an" before "option". > > Section 4.6.2, 3rd paragraph: move "also" before "offering". I presume > the "IP connectivity services" are those being offered to the host being > identified, but > that should be made clear in the text since the sentence is vague as to > which end > of the conversation is being reference. > > Section 4.7.1: delete "an" before "identity". > > Section 4.7.2, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: insert "having" after "is". > > Section 4.7.2, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: delete "ported to be". > > Section 4.8, title: insert "of" after "Use". > > Section 4.8.1, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: replace "differentiating" with > "host-identifying". > > Section 4.8.2, 1st bullet item: insert "The" before "Address" and then > make "Address" > lower case. I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to tell me, however. > > Section 4.8.2, 2nd bullet item: replace "an" with "that the". > > Section 4.8.2, 4th bullet item: delete "Some" before "implementation" and > then > capitalize "implementations". Delete "to" before "delay" and append "of" > after "delay". > Change "receiving" to "receipt of". Delete the comma after "Request". > > Section 4.8.2, 5th bullet item: delete "may" before "receive" and then > change "receive" > to "receives". > > Section 4.8.2, 8th bullet item: delete "a". > > Section 4.8.2, 9th bullet item, 2nd sentence: change the first "are" to > "is". Delete > "to be". > > Section 4.9.1, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: insert "the" before "address". > Append a > comma after "IDENT". > > Section 4.9.1, 2nd paragraph, 4th sentence: change "16 bit" to "16-bit". > > Section 4.9.2, 1st bullet item, 2nd sentence: change "Alternatives" to > "Alternative". > Change "mechanism" to "mechanisms". Change "design" to "designed". I > don't think you > want the list of other transport mechanisms to include TCP since you've > already said > that IDENT is specific to TCP. > > Section 4.9.2, 3rd bullet item, 1st sentence: insert "that" before "the > address". > Insert "the" before "IDENT". > > Section 4.9.2, 4th bullet item, 2nd sentence: change "This" to "Such a". > Change > "deployable" to "feasible". Delete "heavy and" unless you want to explain > what > heavy means. > > Section 4.9.2, 5th bullet item: delete "Some" and capitalize > "implementations". > Delete "to" before "delay" and append "of" after "delay". Change > "receiving" to > "receipt of". Delete the comma after "response". > > Section 4.9.2, 6th bullet item: delete "a". > > Section 4.9.2, 7th bullet item, 1st sentence: change "are" to "is". > > Section 4.9.2, 7th bullet item, 2nd sentence: change "even" to "further". > > Section 4.9.2, 9th bullet item: change "non legitimate" to "illegitimate". > > Section 5, 1st paragraph after the Table 1 caption: append a comma after > "[Options]". > Insert ", and" before "ExtendTCP". > > Section 5, 2nd paragraph after the Table 1 caption: change "Address" to > "address". > > Section 5, 3rd paragraph after the Table 1 caption: change "to establish" > to > "for establishing". > > Section 5, 4th paragraph after the Table 1 caption, 3rd sentence: change > "hold" to > "delay". Change "receiving" to "receipt of". > > Section 5, 4th paragraph after the Table 1 caption, 4th sentence: change > "at" to "on". > > Section 5, 5th paragraph after the Table 1 caption, 3rd sentence: change > "hold" to "delay". Change "receiving" > to "receipt of". Insert "the" before "IDENT". > > Section 5, 5th paragraph after the Table 1 caption, 4th sentence: change > "at" to "on". > Consider rewriting this sentence and the similar one in the previous > paragraph for even > greater clarity. > > Section 7, 3rd paragraph: insert "used" before "to convey". > > Section 8, 1st paragraph: append a comma after "Halpern". > > Section 8, 2nd paragraph: append a comma after "Wing". > > Section 8, 4th paragraph: change to "The privacy text was provided by A. > Cooper." > > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
