A few comments on "Finding FCIP Entities Using SLPv2" -- 1 technical.

[Elizabeth Rodriguez <erodrigu@Brocade.COM>]

Title: A few comments on "Finding FCIP Entities Using SLPv2" -- 1 technical.

1) (Technical) Section 6.1 (pg 9) Think this section needs cleaning up.
I think what we need to say here is that SLPv2 security MUST be implemented and  IPsec for use with SLPv2 MAY be implemented.

When confidentiality is needed, SLPv2 with IPsec must be used.  When confidentiality is not needed, SLPv2 security may be used.

2) (Editorial) Has this draft been compared to and synchronized to the Security draft version 15 yet?
3) (Editorial)  Titles on pages 2- show "FCIP and SLPV2".  This should probably be changed to "Finding FCIP Entities Using SLPv2"

4) (Editorial) Section 4.1, just below figure 1 (pg. 4) "As indicated in the above drawing above" -- change to "As indicated in the drawing above"

5) (Editorial) Section 4.2 (pg 5):  Should the recommendations to handle NAPTs/NATs be made stronger -- since run time recommendation, can not use upper case form of reserved words, but can use lower case.

e.g. Suggested change: "Use a fully-qualified domain name instead of IP address in service URLs and in the mgmt-entity attribute." to "A fully-qualified domain name should be used in service URLs and mgmt-entity attribute"

6) (Editorial) Section 4.2, (pg 6) "Use the default IANA-assigned FCIP TCP port number in service URLs, , when possible."  -- Remove second ","

7) (Editorial) References need to be separated into Normative and Non-normative sections.
8) (Editorial) FCIP and Security draft references need to be updated.