Hi,
Thanks for the review. I've noted how/whether I've addressed your comments
inline below.
Mat
On 2 Feb 2011, at 15:18, Francis Dupont 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.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues-02.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 2011-02-01
IETF LC End Date: 2011-02-01
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Not Ready (a new version should be published)
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None but there are some comments from AD review
and many from TSVDIR review so I really expect the document will
be changed. BTW it seems these comments are about minor issues.
Nits/editorial comments:
(including personal comments)
- 1 page 4: the beginning should be updated as the forecast was
realized...
Updated.
- 5.1 page 10 (and other places):
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-port-randomization] was published as RFC 6056
Updated.
- 5.2.1.1 page 11: UPnP IGD 2.0 last published last year
Updated.
- 9 page 14: at the exception of the last sentence the ICMP
considerations are in fact about the ICMP echo service. I suggest
to make this clearer: add some words at the beginning and make
the last sentence about ICMP messages 'in general'.
This section now references RFC5508 for details.
- 9 page 14: as far as I know *no* 'ping' tool supports the
specification of the identifier to ping, so to provide
'identifier forwarding' for pinging a host behind a NAT is useless
(i.e., it only satisfies the ego of the programmer :-).
Identifier was mentioned in the context of routing incoming responses.
- 11 page 15: IMHO in most of the cases the 'special handling'
is reassembly. BTW if some NAT can be distributed (i.e., they
share the mapping state) as far as I know this is never true
for the reassembly state.
No change.
- 12 page 16: in
Address sharing solutions must record and store all mappings
the term mappings could be considered as too general, i.e.,
I don't believe the whole 7-tuple has to be logged. Now it is
an informative document so a strict interpretation is not required
(or even desirable).
No change.
- 13.5 page 18 (and 6 page 13): RFC 3947 is no longer used: IKEv2
has integrated NAT-detection/protection/traversal. IMHO at least
the reference must be updated.
Added ref to RFC5996 in ยง13. Earlier ref to RFC3947 has been removed after AD
comments.
- 27 page 26: please update [UPnP-IGD]. BTW the UPnP v2 includes both
IGD 1.0 and IGD 2.0 so it is enough to put the parent reference.
Updated.
spelling:
- (twice) Acknowledgements - Acknowledgments
- wi-fi - Wi-Fi
- (and similar) geolocates - geo-locates
- (multiple) randomisation - randomization
- (twice) Behaviour - Behavior
- organisation - organization
- realise - realize
- customised - customized
- centralised - centralized
- (twice) optimisation - optimization
- (twice) utilise - utilize
(to summarize just switch to an American spelling checker :-)
Regards
francis.dup...@fdupont.fr
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
