Subject: [Dime] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-dime-4over6-provisioning-04: (with COMMENT)

From: "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2015 14:17:50 -0700

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dime-4over6-provisioning-04: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-4over6-provisioning/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

As reported by Tim Chown in his OPS DIR review:
Overall, I believe the document is Ready. Despite its nature (as a list
of definitions) it generally reads very well.

There are some minor typos, and items to be checked, as listed below,
some of which would no doubt be picked up by the RFC Editor:

1. Section 2.1 line 4, should be “provisions” (plural).

2. Section 2.5, line 5 of second bullet point, “IPv4” not “Pv4”.

3. Section 3.3.2. I found the third paragraph a little clumsy to read;
   perhaps clarify the SSM prefix of ff3x::/32 in effect being a /96?. 
   Also, do you mean bits 33-95 here, or bits 32-95 (twice)?

4. Section 3.5, Figure 5. Should the vertical lines be below 8 and 16,
   rather than below 7 and 15?

5. Section 6 reads a little strangely, in that it says in 6.1 “hey, you
can
   mitm Diameter”, then 6.2 says “you MUST use TLS/IPsec avoiding
   intermediate nodes”. Seems a little conflicting in outlook?

6. Two transition drafts cited in the text are now published as RFC 7596

   and RFC 7597.