Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-08

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(_at_)si6networks(_dot_)com> 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(_at_)si6networks(_dot_)com
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492