Analysis of Stateful 64 Translation
draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis-07
Yes
(David Harrington)
(Jari Arkko)
(Wesley Eddy)
No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Peter Saint-Andre)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
(Stephen Farrell)
(Stewart Bryant)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
David Harrington Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -06)
Unknown
Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -06)
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-02-28 for -06)
Unknown
I have no objection to the publication of this document, but I have a number of small issues I hope you will attend to before publication. --- Section 2 is unnecessary and should be removed (deosn't idnits give a warning about this?) --- In Section 3, it would help the reader if you did not use the passive voice. Following is a point by point analysis of the problems. Issues listed in [RFC4966] are classified into three categories: Is the classification yours or does it come from RFC 4966? It is a bit of a nuisance to have to read RFC 4966 to discover the answer? In view of this, I found the category "impossible to solve" to be an "interesting" categorisation! Where is the proof? --- Section 3.3 Analysis: This issue has mitigated severity as the DNS is separated from the NAT functionality. Using a past participle as an adjective is all very well, but here is has confused the meaning! It reads as though the issue has done the mitigation. Better to say: The severity of this issue has been mitigated... And then it is normal to treat mitigation as transitive. So, what did the mitigation? The severity of this issue has been mitigated by the separation of the DNS from the NAT functionality. --- Section 3.3, item 3 This item suggests that you need a fourth category: viz. issues that do not apply to this problem space. --- Section 6 would be enhanced by pointing at the issues within the document that are related to security. --- I'm slightly suspiscious that the reference to [I-D.haddad-mext-nat64-mobility-harmful] in Section 3.1 may be normative. I am pretty sure that [I-D.ietf-pcp-base] is normative in item 4 of Section 3.3. [I-D.ietf-behave-lsn-requirements] in item 6 of Section 3.3 may be normative.
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown
Peter Saint-Andre Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown