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

Request Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-2xlat
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 02)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-09-22
Requested 2015-09-11
Authors Tore Anderson, S.J.M. Steffann
Draft last updated 2015-09-17
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -01 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -01 by Ólafur Guðmundsson (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Christer Holmberg
State Completed
Review review-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-2xlat-01-genart-lc-holmberg-2015-09-17
Reviewed rev. 01 (document currently at 02)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2015-09-17

Review
review-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-2xlat-01-genart-lc-holmberg-2015-09-17






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?