Last Call Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-2xlat-01
review-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-2xlat-01-genart-lc-holmberg-2015-09-17-00

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>

Document:                                  
draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-2xlat-01.txt

Reviewer:                                     Christer Holmberg

Review Date:                               17 September 2015

IETF LC End Date:                       22 September 2015

IETF Telechat Date:                   N/A

Summary:                                     The document is well written, and
almost ready for publication. However, there are a few editorial nits that I ask
 the author to address.

Major Issues: None

Minor Issues: None

Editorial Issues:



Section 2 (Terminology):

------------------------------



Q2_1: Many of the definitions have been defined in

draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc. Now they are re-defined, and sometimes with a little
different wording.



For those definitions, my suggestion would be to say:



“As defined in [draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc], a XXX is a blah blah blah” –
copy/pasting the text from draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc.





Q2_2: In the Edge Relay, I think it would be good to mention the two types
(node-based and network-based).





Section 4 (

Deployment Considerations

):

---------------------------------------------------



Q4_1:



The text in section 4.1. says:



                             “The IPv6 Path MTU between the ER and the BR will
                             typically be larger

   than the default value defined in Section 4 of [RFC6145] (1280),”



What is (1280)?





Section 5 (

Intra-IDC IPv4 Communication

):

---------------------------------------------------



Q5_1:



The text in section 5.1 says:



“If the BR supports hairpinning as described in Section 4.2 of I-D

   .ietf-v6ops-siit-eam [I-D.ietf-v6ops-siit-eam],”



I suggest to remove I-D.ietf-v6ops-siit-eam. The reference is enough.





Section 7 (IANA Considerations):

----------------------------------------



Q7_1: Do we normally remove the section if there are no requests from IANA?
Personally I prefer to keep the explicit “This draft makes no request of the
IANA.” sentence.



(I had the same comment on

draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc, so whatever the outcome is it can be applied to both
documents).





Section 8 (Security Considerations):

----------------------------------------



Q8_1:



The text says:



“See the Security Considerations section in

   [I-D.ietf-v6ops-siit-dc] for additional security considerations

   applicable to the SIIT-DC architecture in general.”



I suggest to remove “additional”.





Q8_2:



Is there a need to have section 8.1, or can all text be put in section 8?