Last Call Review of draft-bao-v6ops-rfc6145bis-05
review-bao-v6ops-rfc6145bis-05-opsdir-lc-wu-2016-02-27-00

Hi, authors:

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written with the intent of improving the operational
 aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may
 be included in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG
 chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.



This document is replacement of RFC6145 and describes the Stateless IP/ICMP
Translation Algorithm which works both for stateless IP/ICMP translator and
stateful IP/ICMP translator. I think this document is ready for
 publication. Here are a few editorial comments:



1.



Section 4.1 said:

“

  If there is a need to add a Fragment Header (the packet is a fragment

   or the DF bit is not set and the packet size is greater than the

   minimum IPv6 MTU in the network set by the translator configuration

   function), the header fields are set as above with the following

   exceptions:

   IPv6 fields:



      Payload Length:  Total length value from the IPv4 header, plus 8

         for the Fragment Header, minus the size of the IPv4 header and

         IPv4 options, if present.



      Next Header:  Fragment Header (44).

…

”

In which case, the header fields are not set as above? Not sure exceptions are
referred to IPv6 fields description or definition? Can we replace

“

Exceptions: with

“

constraints

”

?



2.



Section 4.2, figure 3

Flags/Fragment Offset field starts from the 6th bytes but end at the 6th byte
and the 3rd bit, not sure the pointer value should be set to 6



The Fragment Offset field starts at the 6th byte and the 4th bit, end at the
7th byte. Not sure the pointer value should be set to 7.



3.



Section 4.2, last paragraph said:

“

the translator passes the extensions as opaque bit strings, and those
containing IPv4 address literals will not have those addresses translated to
IPv6 address literals; this may cause
 problems with processing of those ICMP extensions.

“

s/passes the extensions/passes them

What is the first

“

those

“

 in this sentence referred to? The extensions or something else?

Is there any relation with the second

“

those

”

 in this sentence(i.e., those addresses)?

What does

“

IPv4 address literals

”

 mean? Opaque bit strings?



4.



Section 5.1.1, 1st paragraph

s/exceptions/constraints ?



Regards!

-Qin Wu