Subject: [dhcwg] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation-07: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 18:42:08 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation-07: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In section 10.1, how could preserving port randomization become "less"
difficult? Presumably the assigned port range will never be larger than
"all the ports".

---

From: Qi Sun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 15:00:14 +0800

Dear Ben,

Thanks for the comment. The text there is a little confusing. 

Would the following change be better?

OLD:
   Preserving port randomization [RFC6056] may be more or less difficult
  depending on the address sharing ratio (i.e., the size of the port
  space assigned to a client).  The host can only randomize the ports
  inside a fixed port range [RFC6269].

NEW:
   Preserving port randomization [RFC6056] may be more difficult
   because the host can only randomize the ports inside a fixed port
   range (see Section 13.4 of [RFC6269]). 

Thanks,
Qi

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 08:58:04 -0500

That helps, thanks!

On 27 May 2015, at 2:00, Qi Sun wrote:

>> Please refer to 
>> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html