Last Call Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-behave-requirements-update-06
review-ietf-tsvwg-behave-requirements-update-06-opsdir-lc-jethanandani-2016-03-08-00

I have reviewed draft-ietf-tsvwg-behave-requirements-update-07 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.

Document reviewed:  draft-ietf-tsvwg-behave-requirements-update-07

Status:

Ready with a nit.

Summary:

This document clarifies and updates several requirements of RFC4787, RFC5382,
and RFC 5508 based on operational and development experience. As the document
states, the focus of the document is NAT44. The intended status of the document
is Best Current Practice.

The document provides clarifications and updates to the above stated RFCs. As
such it is not defining any new configuration parameters or behavior. At best
it describes the expected behavior learnt from years of having deployed the
solution. Operators and users of the solution might want to make note of the
recommendations in the document. It would be nice, and this is not something
against the document itself, to see all the recommendations in one document,
rather than the recommendations spread over four documents.

A run of idnits on the document yields one warning:



-- The document seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, and may

     have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  The

     disclaimer is necessary when there are original authors that you have

     been unable to contact, or if some do not wish to grant the BCP78 rights

     to the IETF Trust.  If you are able to get all authors (current and

     original) to grant those rights, you can and should remove the

     disclaimer; otherwise, the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this

     comment. (See the Legal Provisions document at



http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info

 for more information.)

Thanks.

Mahesh Jethanandani

mjethanandani at gmail.com