Subject: Sean Turner's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-dad-proxy-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: "Sean Turner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 14:28:03 -0700

Sean Turner has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6man-dad-proxy-05: Discuss

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

s6.1, para 1: When won't using SEND without a proxy break the security? 
I think what you're trying to say is that using plain old SEND won't work
you've got to use SEND with the proxy - right?

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

1) Is the word "proxy" missing from the following in the abstract:

 The document describes a mechanism allowing the use of Duplicate
 Address Detection (DAD) by IPv6 nodes in a point-to-multipoint
 architecture with "split-horizon" forwarding scheme. 

s1 use "proxy" after DAD and then s1 para 2 says:

  This document explains also why DAD mechanism [RFC4862] cannot be
  used in a point-to-multipoint architecture with "split-horizon"
  forwarding scheme (IPv6 over PPP [RFC5072] is not affected).

And could we make it clear that a proxy is needed:

  This document explains also why DAD mechanism [RFC4862] without a
proxy
  cannot be
  used in a point-to-multipoint architecture with "split-horizon"
  forwarding scheme (IPv6 over PPP [RFC5072] is not affected).

2) s4.2: Some minor wording tweaks because I don't know what the MUST
pertains to:

OLD:

  perform actions depending on the information in the Binding Table.

NEW:

  perform actions specified in the following sections based on
  the information in the Binding Table.

3) s4.2.1/s4.2.2: What happens if the BNG does reply/forward?

4) s4.1/s4.2.2: Is the neighborhood cache in s4.2.2 the same thing as the
binding table in s4.1?

5) s4.2.3.2: L2 header: Which link-layer address is returned to CPE2?  Is
it it's own or the one from CPE1?

6) s6.1: Agree with Barry's SHOULD vs MUST discuss.

7) s6.2: r/To ensure a protection/To ensure protection 

8) s6.2: not sure you really need the MAY.  Maybe r/MAY/can

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 17:38:14 -0400

Yeh, same DISCUSS as mine.

Barry