Subject: [Gen-art] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 10 June 2010

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 20:41:15 -0500

Hi all,

Here's the link to the new LC assignments for this week:
http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100610-lc.html

The assignments are captured in the spreadsheets:
http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/gen-art.html
http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/gen-art-by-reviewer.html

The standard template is included below.

Thanks,
Mary.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

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>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document:
Reviewer:
Review Date:
IETF LC End Date:
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary:

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 17:30:29 -0400

Document: draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-framework-09
     Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
Review Date: 11-June-2010
IETF LC End Date: 15-June-2010
IESG Telechat date: N/A

Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as an 
Informational RFC.

The first minor item below should be considered for repair.
The second minor item really needs to be fixed.

Major issues: None

Minor issues:  There is a sentence in section 1.4 of this draft which reads:
    There will come a time to set a date after which no one is
    obligated to carry native IPv4 but it
    would be premature to attempt to do so yet.
My problem is that except for business drivers, which are not up to us, 
no one is "obliged" to carry native IPv4 now.  If someone wants to build 
their network using pure IPv6, they can.  (And I have heard of one 
service provider who is doing so.)  Is this sentence actually useful?

In section 3.1.1, Figure 9 is for stateless translation, and figure 10 
is for stateful translation.  Unfortunately, a  cut-and-paste error has 
resulted in the translator box in figure 10 being labeled "Stateless 
XLAT."  It should be "Stateful XLAT."

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 06:38:12 +0900

Thanks. So you are suggesting that we pull a sentence and change a word. Correct?

On Jun 12, 2010, at 6:30 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:

> Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
> 
> My problem is that except for business drivers, which are not up to us, no one is "obliged" to carry native IPv4 now.  If someone wants to build their network using pure IPv6, they can.  (And I have heard of one service provider who is doing so.)  Is this sentence actually useful?
> 
> In section 3.1.1, Figure 9 is for stateless translation, and figure 10 is for stateful translation.  Unfortunately, a  cut-and-paste error has resulted in the translator box in figure 10 being labeled "Stateless XLAT."  It should be "Stateful XLAT."
> 
> Yours,
> Joel M. Halpern

http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 17:55:34 -0400

Yep.  That's all I am suggesting.
Joel

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 14:07:55 -0700

Thanks!
-d

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 2:30 PM
> To: Mary Barnes
> Cc: [email-masked]; Vijay K. Gurbani; Dan Wing; 
> [email-masked]
> Subject: [Gen-Art] Review: draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-framework-09
>