Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dime-4over6-provisioning-03
review-ietf-dime-4over6-provisioning-03-opsdir-lc-chown-2015-08-06-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-dime-4over6-provisioning |
|---|---|---|
| Requested rev. | no specific revision (document currently at 06) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
| Deadline | 2015-08-04 | |
| Requested | 2015-07-06 | |
| Authors | Cathy Zhou, Tom Taylor, Qiong Sun, Mohamed Boucadair | |
| Draft last updated | 2015-08-06 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -03 by Russ Housley
(diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -03 by Tim Chown (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Tim Chown |
| State | Completed | |
| Review | review-ietf-dime-4over6-provisioning-03-opsdir-lc-chown-2015-08-06 | |
| Reviewed rev. | 03 (document currently at 06) | |
| Review result | Has Nits | |
| Review completed: | 2015-08-06 |
Review
review-ietf-dime-4over6-provisioning-03-opsdir-lc-chown-2015-08-06
Hi, 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. The draft describes information that needs to be provisioned on a CPE to support IPv4 in IPv6 tunnelling via a number of transition techniques, specifically DS-Lite, Lightweight 4over6, and MAP-E. It also includes consideration of IPv4 multicast. The result is a list of Attribute-Value Pairs (AVPs) to be carried within the Diameter protocol. Overall, I believe the document is Ready. Despite its nature (as a list of definitions) it generally reads very well. There are some minor typos, and items to be checked, as listed below, some of which would no doubt be picked up by the RFC Editor: 1. Section 2.1 line 4, should be “provisions” (plural). 2. Section 2.5, line 5 of second bullet point, “IPv4” not “Pv4”. 3. Section 3.3.2. I found the third paragraph a little clumsy to read; perhaps clarify the SSM prefix of ff3x::/32 in effect being a /96?. Also, do you mean bits 33-95 here, or bits 32-95 (twice)? 4. Section 3.5, Figure 5. Should the vertical lines be below 8 and 16, rather than below 7 and 15? 5. Section 6 reads a little strangely, in that it says in 6.1 “hey, you can mitm Diameter”, then 6.2 says “you MUST use TLS/IPsec avoiding intermediate nodes”. Seems a little conflicting in outlook? 6. Two transition drafts cited in the text are now published as RFC 7596 and RFC 7597. Best wishes, Tim