Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes-05: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Bonjour Med, Thank you for the work put into this document. The shepherd write-up is really terse but reflects that it was a rough consensus. Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated), and some nits. I hope that this helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric == COMMENTS == -- Abstract -- The one-line abstract does not really explain/summarize what this document is about. E.g., nothing is mentioned about 3GPP origin. Expanding the abstract with something like "by allowing the responder to signal to the initiator which address families are supported". -- Section 1 -- The sentence "When the UE attaches the network using a WLAN access by means of IKEv2 capabilities, there are no equivalent notification codes ..." looks cryptic to me. What is the link with WLAN access and IKEv2 ? -- Section 5 -- "If a dual-stack initiator requests only an IPv6 prefix (or an IPv4 address) but only receives IP4_ALLOWED (or IP6_ALLOWED) notification status type from the responder, the initiator MUST send a request for IPv4 address(es) (or IPv6 prefix(es))." Is it really a "MUST" and not a "SHOULD" or even "MAY" ? A constrained UE may have IPv6-only applications and, even if OS is dual-stack, not bothers to have a useless IPv4 address. The paragraph after this one mimics the 3GPP PDP behavior, but, does it make sense for IKEv2 ? == NITS == In several places, the word "responder" is misspelled. In some places, a ':' is followed by a capitalized word which looks weird to my French-reading eyes... _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
