[apps-discuss] Apps-team review of draft-arkko-townsley-coexistence-04

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Wed, 29 September 2010 00:05 UTC

Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20100928130147.0cb0c870@elandnews.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 17:06:03 -0700
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: Mark Townsley <townsley@cisco.com>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: [apps-discuss] Apps-team review of draft-arkko-townsley-coexistence-04
Precedence: list

Hello,

I have been selected as the Applications Area Review Team reviewer 
for this draft (for background on apps-review, please see 
http://www.apps.ietf.org/content/applications-area-review-team).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments 
you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document 
shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-arkko-townsley-coexistence-04
Reviewer: S. Moonesamy
Review Date: September 28, 2010
IETF Last Call Date: September 13, 2010
IESG Telechat Date: Unknown

Summary:

This draft is almost ready for publication as a RFC but has a few 
issues that should be fixed before publication.  Please refer to the 
comment about the intended status.  The Introduction Section does not 
reflect the text in the Abstract Section which mentions that the 
document is being published to reflect the thinking at the time (2008).

Major Issues:

None

Minor Issues:

According to the Abstract Section:

   "This document was originally created as input to the Montreal co-
    existence interim meeting in October 2008, which led to the
    rechartering of the Behave and Softwire working groups to take on new
    IPv4 and IPv6 coexistence work.  This document is published as a
    historical record of the thinking at the time."

The Introduction Section should be updated to reflect what the 
document seeks to represent, i.e. the thinking in 2008.

In the Security Considerations Section:

   "It is important to note that some of the solutions may have impacts
    on how IPsec or DNS Security can work through translation devices."

I suggest adding application protocols to that as the solutions may 
have an impact on them.

Nits:

The intended status of this I-D is Informational.  The Abstract 
Section mentions that:

   "This document is published as a historical record of the thinking 
at the time."

In Section 2.1, please expand "GW" on first use.  In Section 2.1.2, 
please expand "ALGs" on first use.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

[apps-discuss] Apps-team review of draft-arkko-to… S Moonesamy
Re: [apps-discuss] Apps-team review of draft-arkk… Jari Arkko