Joe, Many thanks for reviewing the draft. The requested changes look reasonable, with one clarification - protocol number 133 was used for a pre-standard version of FCIP, not iFCP . Thanks, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Touch [mailto:touch@xxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 2:02 PM > To: draft-ietf-storm-ifcp-ipn133-updates@xxxxxxxx; Black, David; david.peterson@xxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: IETF discussion list; TSV Dir > Subject: tsv-dir review of draft-ietf-storm-ifcp-ipn133-updates-02 > > Hi, all, > > I've reviewed this document as part of the transport area > directorate's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These > comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but > are copied to the document's authors for their information and to > allow them to address any issues raised. The authors should consider > this review together with any other last-call comments they > receive. Please always CC tsv-dir@xxxxxxxx if you reply to or forward > this review. > > ---- > > This document updates the specification for iFCP over TCP by > deprecating address translation mode. > > There are no significant transport issues raised by this > document. There are some clarifications that seem necessary, as noted > below. > > Joe > > ------ > > The title implies that there is a 133rd version of IP (i.e., IPv133). It > might be more useful to focus on the changes it proposes: > > Deprecating Translation Mode for iFCP over TCP > > Overall, the prominence of the protocol 133 issue should be reduced, as > it is not specific to the changes proposed by this document. This includes: > > - removing the last sentence of the abstract > > - removing the last paragraph of Section 1 > > - change section 4 as follows: > > section heading: > Using iFCP over TCP > > section content: > > Explain that iFCP runs as a payload inside TCP > using dynamic port numbers coordinated out-of-band. > > Add that IP protocol 133 is not used for iFCP, > but was used for a pre-release version that > did run directly over IP, was deployed, and > may still be in use. > > (do not discuss IANA actions; that's for Sec 6, > and since removal is not requested, it would not > occur anyway) > > If references to "Protocol 133" remain, such references should be > IPv6-friendly and should be more clear that they are inside IP (rather > than versions of IP), i.e., "IP Protocol/Next Header field with a value > of 133". > > Sec 6 should more clearly state that the IANA entry for IP protocol > 133 be updated to note that it is NOT used by iFCP. > > ---- > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf