Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-20.txt

From: "Miguel A. Garcia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:17:08 +0200

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (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 comments you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-20.txt
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Review Date: 15-June-2010
IETF LC End Date: 15-June-2010
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary: The document is ready for publication as a standards track RFC.

Major issues: none

Minor issues:

- Section 4.4 got my attention due to the lack of normative text. The 
says "... has a Type value 1...." a couple of times, while describing how 
to build an ICMPv6 error message. I wonder if this is on purpose or 
whether these sentences should be promoted to normative text.

Nits/editorial comments:

- As a personal matter of taste, I think the Introduction section should 
not include normative text (there is a "MUST" and a "MAY"), because then 
it is no longer an introduction.

- In Section 1.1, there is a slightly incongruence with the term XLAT. In 
the first paragraph of Section 1.1 the term XLAT is expanded as "IP/ICMP 
translator", whereas in Figure 1 (on the right of the figure) it is 
expanded as "IPv6/IPv4 translator". The term "XLAT" should be harmonized.

- As personal taste, I don't like to write normative text in a relative 
clause, because it hides the importance of the normative part. This 
happens in the following sections:

   - Section 3.3:
     In addition, the ICMP error messages contain the packet in error,
     which MUST be translated just like a normal IP packet.

   - Section 4.4:

     In addition, the ICMP error messages contain the packet in error,
     which MUST be translated just like a normal IP packet.

   The suggestion is to split the sentence into two.

- idnits reports the following error and warnings:

   ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1883 (Obsoleted by RFC 2460)

   == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of
      draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-framework-08

   -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2766
      (Obsoleted by RFC 4966)

BR,

       Miguel
-- 
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain

---

From: Xing Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 08:27:27 +0800

Hi, Miguel,

Thank you very much for your comments. We will make modifications in the 
next upload.

Regards,

xing, congxiao

Miguel A. Garcia 写道:
> reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ 
> at http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq
>
> says "... has a Type value 1...." a couple of times, while describing 
> how to build an ICMPv6 error message. I wonder if this is on purpose 
> or whether these sentences should be promoted to normative text.
>
>
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>
> - As a personal matter of taste, I think the Introduction section 
> should not include normative text (there is a "MUST" and a "MAY"), 
> because then it is no longer an introduction.
>
> - In Section 1.1, there is a slightly incongruence with the term XLAT. 
> In the first paragraph of Section 1.1 the term XLAT is expanded as 
> "IP/ICMP translator", whereas in Figure 1 (on the right of the figure) 
> it is expanded as "IPv6/IPv4 translator". The term "XLAT" should be 
> harmonized.
>
> - As personal taste, I don't like to write normative text in a 
> relative clause, because it hides the importance of the normative 
> part. This happens in the following sections:
>
> - Section 3.3: