Subject: [6lo] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-6lobac-06: (with COMMENT)

From: "Mirja Kuehlewind" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 08:07:00 -0800

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6lo-6lobac-06: 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-6lo-6lobac/

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

1) Agree with Ben that normative wording should not be used if it just
summarizes things that are specified in a different doc.

2) Section 5: "A node implementing [RFC7400] MUST probe its peers for GHC
support before applying GHC." How?

3) Just to make sure I get the security section right: MS/TP networks are
not connected to the Internet or use something like a gateway. Maybe make
this point more clear: basically say that the reason to use IPv6 is NOT
that you want to send these packets eventually directly to the Internet!