Hi Miika, All your responses are OK with me. As for posting a new version, I think it will be good to submit one with all the changes that came in the IETF LC Roni -----Original Message----- From: Gen-art [mailto:gen-art-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Miika Komu Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2018 4:13 PM To: Roni Even; gen-art@xxxxxxxx Cc: hipsec@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal.all@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-27 Hi Roni, thanks for the detailed review! My comments are below. On 02/26/2018 03:21 PM, Roni Even wrote: > Reviewer: Roni Even > Review result: Almost Ready > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by > the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like > any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-?? > Reviewer: Roni Even > Review Date: 2018-02-26 > IETF LC End Date: 2018-02-26 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: > The document is almost ready for publication as a standard track RFC > > Major issues: > > Minor issues: > > 1. in section 4.2 "Gathering of candidates MAY also be performed by > other means than described in this section. For example, the candidates could be > gathered as specified in Section 4.2 of [RFC5770] if STUN servers are > available, or if the host has just a single interface and no STUN orData > Relay Server are available." I did not see this a different ways since > section 3 says "The hosts use either Control Relay Servers or Data Relay > Servers (or other infrastructure including STUN or TURN servers) for > gathering the candidates." so STUN is mentioned also here. I suggest to remove the remark in parenthesis (or other infrastructure including STUN or TURN servers). Does this solve the issue? [Roni] Yes > 2. In section 4.6.2 "The connectivity check messages MUST be paced by > the Ta value negotiated during the base exchange as described in > Section 4.4. If neither one of the hosts announced a minimum pacing > value, a value of 20 ms SHOULD be used." in section 4.4 the default value is 50 ms? Good catch! I double checked this from the ICE spec, which defaults also to 50 ms. So, I change the value to 50 ms also in section 4.6.2. [Roni] OK > 3. in section 5.4 what about "ICE-STUN-UDP 2" ; I assume it is not > relevant but this is also the IANA registeration I think it makes sense to add the missing one as you suggest, but omit it from the IANA registration since it is already registered for RFC5770. [Roni] OK > 4. In section 5.5 "The TRANSACTION_PACING is a new parameter" it is > not new it is in RFC5770 You're right, I'll change this. [Roni]OK > 5. In section 5.10 "SERVER_REFLEXIVE_CANDIDATE_ALLOCATION_FAILED 63" > is the only new one. this also relates to section 7 that says that all > error values in section 5.10 are new while the rest are in RFC5770. > Also there is no mention in section 7 of which registry is used for the error values. Good catch, I'll correct these and add the IANA registry. [Roni]OK > Nits/editorial comments: > 1. Expand SPI and LSI when first appear in the document > > 2. in section 2 "the base of an candidate" should be "a candidate" > > 3. In section 3 "so it is the Initiator may also have registered to a > Control and/or Data Relay Server" maybe "so the Initiator may also > need to register to a Control and/or Data Relay Server" > > 4. In section 4.2 "However, it is RECOMMENDED that a Data Relay Client > registers a new server reflexive candidate for each its peer for the > reasons described" maybe "for each of its..." Thanks for spotting these, will fix as suggested. > 5. In section 4.2 I could not parse the sentence "where Ta is the > value used for Ta is the value used for the" Should be "where Ta is the value used for the"... > 6. in section 4.6 "as defined in section in 6.7 in [RFC7401]:" change > to "as defined in section 6.7 in [RFC7401]:" Will fix this too. Should I post a new version with the suggested changes? _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
