Hi Med,
At 01:17 AM 7/26/2012, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
Med: The issue is described in detail in RFC6269:
"
In addition, there are web tie-ins into different blacklists that web
administrators subscribe to in order to redirect users with infected
machines (e.g., detect the presence of a worm) to a URL that says
"Hey, your machine is infected!". With address sharing, someone
else's worm can interfere with the ability to access the service for
other subscribers sharing the same IP address.
That's not an issue; it's more of an action which may be taken once
the relevant host is identified.
Thinking aloud, this is more like creating a problem by sharing the
same identifier and creating another identifier to solve that problem. :-)
Med: IPv4 address sharing is already deployed but still the widely
deployed model is to assign public IP addresses to customers. Would
you be OK with changing "due to the introduction of CGNs" to "due to
the massive introduction of CGNs"?
If the technology has significant deployment, it does not make that
difference whether it is introduced or massively introduced. I
suggest using the word "deployed" to keep it simple.
Med: I'm mainly thinking about NPTv6 (RFC6296).
I am not keen on seeing this in IPv6 unless we are already running
out of IPv6 addresses. :-)
Med: Host Identity Protocol. A reference is provided in the draft.
I suggest expanding on first use (RFC Editor nits).
Med: X-Forwarded-For. The acronym is expanded in the draft but in
Section A.8.1. I will make sure it is expanded in first use.
Ok.
Med: Could you please indicate what is not fair about that sentence? Thanks.
I would not compare solutions at different layers and qualify them as
a fair comparison.
Med: XFF allows to prepend a list of IP addresses when several
address sharing, application proxies, etc. are in the path. The term
compatible is used to indicate XFF can be used in that scenario. If
you have any better wording, please advise. Thanks.
I'll get back to you on this.
Med: Anonymity may be provided; see for instance the TOR service.
There was some discussion about privacy and identifiers for another
draft. You might end up getting in a long discussion about the privacy angle.
Med: XFF is for instance an HTTP header, "via" is a SIP header, etc.
Would it be better if we change "Application Header" to "Application
Protocols Headers"?
If I recall correctly, the term is "message header fields".
Regards,
-sm
P.S. Sorry for being short.
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
