Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-sipping-nat-scenarios-15

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 16:50:18 -0400

Hi Robert,
  That makes sense. I did not realize that using a RFC5735 address in an inside NAT context would cause confusion. If that is the case please leave them as is.

Thanks
Suresh 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Sparks [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 10:18 AM
> To: Suresh Krishnan
> Cc: [email-masked]; 
> General Area Review Team; Gonzalo Camarillo
> Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of 
> draft-ietf-sipping-nat-scenarios-15
> 
> Suresh -
> 
> The addresses you are pointing to are not generic example 
> addresses, they are "inside NAT example addresses".  At one 
> point in the draft's history they changed to use 5735 
> addresses, but the reviewers objected, feeling that  using 
> 1918 addresses were more sensible for these examples. 
> 
> RjS
> 
> 
> On Mar 30, 2011, at 1:14 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> 
> > Resending due to a tools alias failure (that has been fixed now)
> > 
> > Thanks
> > Suresh
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> > Behalf Of Suresh Krishnan
> > Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 11:50 PM
> > To: General Area Review Team; 
> > [email-masked]
> > Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of 
> > draft-ietf-sipping-nat-scenarios-15
> > 
> > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for
> > draft-ietf-sipping-nat-scenarios-15
> > 
> > For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at 
> <http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.
> > 
> > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last 
> Call comments you may receive.
> > 
> > Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an 
> Informational RFC but it has an issue that probably needs to 
> be fixed before publication.
> > 
> > Minor
> > =====
> > 
> > * The draft uses addresses from the RFC1918 space in the 
> examples instead of using the addresses reserved for 
> documentation in RFC 5735 (i.e. 192.0.2.0/24, 
> 198.51.100.0/24, and 203.0.113.0/24). It would be good if 
> this can be fixed in the draft.
> > 
> > Thanks
> > Suresh
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gen-art mailing list
> > [email-masked]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
> 
>