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
