Last Call Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-2xlat-01

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


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <>

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






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






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):





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”.





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