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

Request Review of draft-bao-v6ops-rfc6145bis
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2016-03-09
Requested 2016-02-13
Authors Congxiao Bao, Xing Li, Fred Baker, Tore Anderson, Fernando Gont
Draft last updated 2016-02-27
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -05 by Jouni Korhonen (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Yoav Nir (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Qin Wu (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Qin Wu
State Completed
Review review-bao-v6ops-rfc6145bis-05-opsdir-lc-wu-2016-02-27
Reviewed rev. 05 (document currently at 07)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2016-02-27

Review
review-bao-v6ops-rfc6145bis-05-opsdir-lc-wu-2016-02-27






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