Elwyn: Nice review. I'm sure the document will be improved because of your efforts. I'd like to make two comments.
> s3.1.3: It is stated that placing the NAT64 (middlebox) in a centralized > location would 'reduce the diversity of log format'. I guess what is > possibly being said that is that the network should preferentially use just > one NAT64 box centrally placed rather than several (smaller) boxes at various > edge locations. I think this needs to be explained more clearly (assuming I > have it right). OTOH I would rather expect that most network owners would go > for a single species of NAT64 box so the diversity of log formats is really a > side issue. In the beginning, yes. Subsequent procurements cal lead to changing vendor. Mergers also lead to multiple venders. > s5.2: The problem here is not specifically geo-location - and since we > normally don't have any mapping between topology and location this seems > inappropriate - but doing host identification (which is what RFC 6967 is > about. Shouldn't this section just be about host identification? If a law enforcement agency shows up with a subpoena, they really do want to know what door to knock down. Thanks for listening, Russ _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
