2014-02-20 22:46 GMT+08:00, Russ Housley <[email protected]>: > 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.
The procurement for more capacity of equipment(e.g. add board card) still could avoid multi-vendor coordination. The procurement for new equipment leads multiple vendor. However, it earns the time to improve implementation. BRs Gang > >> 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
