Folks,
I was asked to review draft-ietf-behave-dccp-04 as input for IESG
evaluation, and I got three comments:
(1) On the abstract:
Developing NATs that meet this set of requirements will greatly
increase the likelihood that applications using DCCP will
function properly.
Sounds a bit like DCCP would work well only if we develop NATs. ;-)
Better reword to:
Ensuring that NATs meet this set of requirements will greatly
increase the likelihood that applications using DCCP will
function properly.
(2) On requirements 1 and 3:
REQ-1: A NAT MUST have an "Endpoint-Independent Mapping"
behavior for DCCP.
REQ-3: If application transparency is most important, it is
RECOMMENDED that a NAT have an "Endpoint-independent filtering"
behavior for DCCP. If a more stringent filtering behavior is
most important, it is RECOMMENDED that a NAT have an
"Address-dependent filtering" behavior.
These requirements are general and not specific to DCCP. Would it
make sense to specify them in a separate RFC for NATs in general,
independent of any specific transport protocol?
(3) On requirement 6:
REQ-6: If a NAT includes ALGs, it MUST NOT affect DCCP.
This requirement is not 100% clear. I am assuming it means: "If a
NAT includes ALGs, the NAT MUST NOT affect DCCP packets that are
processed by one of those ALGs." Suggest to reword the requirement
in this way.
- Christian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf