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

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2018 17:55:47 -0700

Adam Roach 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the work everyone put into updating this document. I have a couple of
minor comments.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§2:
>  The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
>  "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
>  document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

Please update this to the boilerplate in RFC 8174.

The document's use of capitalized versus non-capitalized versions of these terms
appears to be inconsistent. In many cases, lowercase forms appear to be used
when reiterating behavior that has been normatively specified in other
documents, which seems correct. In other places, the selection of uppercase
keywords appears to be fairly arbitrary (e.g., §5.3 uses a mix of "MAY" and
"should"). Consider doing a pass to ensure that the use of normative language is
consistent.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

With the removal of its final paragraph, §8.4 appears to only describe general
principles, and doesn't seem to contain any actionable requirements anymore. As
an implementor, I don't know what I would do to conform with its contents.
Consider adding concrete implementor guidance, or removing the section.

---

From: Timothy Winters <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 16:34:39 -0400

Hi Adam,

Thanks for taking the time to comment.   We have updated the boiler plate
as suggested for draft 09.   As for Section 8.4, there was some working
group discussion about this topic the suggestion in the last sentence is
the guidance that working group came to.

"To maximize interoperability in such environments, hosts would need to
implement multiple configuration mechanisms to ensure interoperability."

~Tim
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 8:55 PM Adam Roach <[email-masked]> wrote:

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

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 15:44:03 -0500

Thanks! Your proposed text for 8.4 seems good to me. 

/a

> On Jul 11, 2018, at 15:34, Timothy Winters <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Adam,
> 
> Thanks for taking the time to comment.   We have updated the boiler plate as suggested for draft 09.   As for Section 8.4, there was some working group discussion about this topic the suggestion in the last sentence is the guidance that working group came to.
> 
> "To maximize interoperability in such environments, hosts would need to implement multiple configuration mechanisms to ensure interoperability."
> 
> ~Tim