Continuing with the review. This goes right to the end,
and I have set the state of the document to Revised ID
Needed. I will still send some summary conclusions
after thinking about the results of the review. But
overall I'm relatively happy, almost everything that
I found was just minor issues. Its a tough document
to read given its size, but very well written and
there was a very small number of obvious problems.
Substantial:
The Shim6 sub-layer is implemented below the IPSec layer within
the
IP layer. This deserves some additional considerations for a
couple
of specific cases: First, it should be noted that the Shim6
approach
does not preclude using IPSEC tunnels on Shim6 packets within the
network transit path. Second, in case that IPSec is
implemented as
Bump-In-The-Wire (BITW) [7], either the shim MUST be disabled,
or the
shim MUST also be implemented as Bump-In-The-Wire, in order to
satisfy the requirement that IPsec is layered above the shim.
Presumably the BITW implementation could also itself
filter out Shim6 control packets, in which case the
shim is never turned on.
In this case, it reccomended that the
...
Shim6 follows the reccomendation defined in [28] and it informs
the
Typos.
in order to allow the congestion
control mechanisms of the upper layers can react accordingly.
s/can/to/
The Shim6 sub-layer is implemented below the IPSec layer within
the
IP layer. This deserves some additional considerations for a
couple
of specific cases: First, it should be noted that the Shim6
approach
does not preclude using IPSEC tunnels on Shim6 packets within the
Different capitalizations of IPsec, none correct.
Jari