Fernando, My apologies for not getting back to you earlier before this draft came up for the IESG telechat. In any case, nothing I mentioned was earth-shattering. I¹ll submit responses in my telechat review which will go out shortly. Thanks. -Peter On 10/16/13, 10:04 PM, "Fernando Gont" <fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >Hi, Peter, > >Thanks so much for your feedback! Please find my comments in-line.... > >On 10/17/2013 01:14 AM, Peter Yee wrote: >> Minor issues: >> >> Page 10, 1st paragraph: the term "improperly-fragmented" is >> used. Are these truly improperly-fragmented packets or simply >> ones that are unfriendly to stateless packet filtering? > >The later. (Yep, th wording could be improved). How about: > >" This document describes how undesirably-fragmented packets can > prevent traditional stateless packet filtering." > > > >> It seems >> more like the lengthy headers were within spec to date and are now >> being prohibited to solve a specific problem. > >I deem this as a corner case that wasn't expected to happen, but yet was >allowed (other might correct me if I'm wrong). > > >> Nits: >> >> General: use a comma after the terms "e.g." or "i.e" throughout the >> document. Usage is inconsistent. > >Remove or add? > > > >> Page 3, 3rd paragraph: insert "the" between "from" and "IPv6". > >Done. > > > >> Page 8, 1st paragraph: replace "a" with "an" before "IPv6 >> datagram". > >Done. > > >> Page 8, 2nd paragraph: the parenthetical example does not appear >> to be a good match for the preceding text. It is written as a >> mechanism that allows the possible maintenance of the status quo >> rather than giving an example of how the preceding SHOULD might >> be implemented. E.g., indicates an example of something. > >mm.. not sure what you mean. Could you please elaborate? > > > >> Page 8, paragraph 3, 1st sentence: change "requirements" to >> "requirement". Only one requirement was given and that was >> that the entire header chain be in the first fragment. > >Done. > > > >> Page 8, 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence: delete the parenthetical >> statement and the "or not". They are redundant. > >Done. > > > >> Page 8, 4th paragraph, 1st sentence: change "requirements" to >> "requirement" for the same reason given above. > >Done > > > >> Page 8, 5th paragraph, 1st sentence: change "requirements" to >> "requirement" for the same reason given above. >Done > > > >> Page 10, 1st paragraph: append a comma after "traditional". > >Done. > >Thanks! > >Best regards, >-- >Fernando Gont >SI6 Networks >e-mail: fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 > > > > >