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(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu]
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 2:02 PM
To: draft-ietf-storm-ifcp-ipn133-updates(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; Black, David;
david(_dot_)peterson(_at_)brocade(_dot_)com
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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf