Subject: [v6ops] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-2xlat-02: (with COMMENT)

From: "Barry Leiba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 21:25:45 -0700

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-2xlat-02: 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-v6ops-siit-dc-2xlat/

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

A small editorial thing in the abstract:

   This document describes an extension of the Stateless IP/ICMP
   Translation for IPv6 Internet Data Centre Environments architecture
   (SIIT-DC), which allows applications, protocols, or nodes that are
   incompatible with IPv6, and/or Network Address Translation to operate
   correctly in an SIIT-DC environment.

With the comma after "IPv6", it looks like you mean this:

   which allows
   1. applications, protocols, or nodes that are
      incompatible with IPv6
   and/or
   2. Network Address Translation
   to operate correctly in an SIIT-DC environment.

...when what you mean is this:

   which allows applications, protocols, or nodes that are
   incompatible with
   1. IPv6
   and/or
   2. Network Address Translation
   to operate correctly in an SIIT-DC environment.

I suggest removing the comma.

---

From: Tore Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 11:10:21 +0200

* Barry Leiba

> I suggest removing the comma.

Good catch - thank you!

Tore

---

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 09:16:05 +0000

Dumb question: is that something the RFC Editor could address rather than having Tore spin the draft?

> On Oct 14, 2015, at 3:10 AM, Tore Anderson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> * Barry Leiba
>

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 09:15:35 -0400

> than having Tore spin the draft?

Oh, absolutely, it'd be fine as an RFC Editor note, if there are no
other changes to make.  I only mentioned it because I don't know that
the RFC Editor would have picked it up, as they aren't necessarily
aware of what the text is meant to say.

Barry

---

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 13:16:51 +0000

OK. If Tore has other updates to make he can pick this up too. But it seems silly to spin the draft for a comma.

> On Oct 14, 2015, at 7:15 AM, Barry Leiba <[email-masked]> wrote:
>