Subject: Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-08: (with COMMENT)

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2018 09:56:07 -0700

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-08: 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-6man-rfc6434-bis/

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

I support Adam's comments concerning the use of normative keywords. In
particular this sentence in 6.3 is in need of a normative "RECOMMENDED" I think:

"It is
   recommended, as described in [RFC8064], that unless there is a
   specific requirement for MAC addresses to be embedded in an IID,
   nodes follow the procedure in [RFC7217] to generate SLAAC-based
   addresses, rather than using [RFC4862]."

In Section 9, this sentence seems unlikely to remain up-to-date for the life of
this document: "The IETF dnssd WG is defining solutions for DNS-based service
           discovery in multi-link networks."

---

From: Timothy Winters <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 14:58:55 -0400

Hi Alissa,

Thanks for taking the time to review.   I updated to capital letters and
removed the Section 9 sentence.

~Tim

On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 12:56 PM Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]> wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email-masked]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>