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

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2018 18:27:27 -0700

Ben Campbell 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 mostly reviewed the diff from RFC 6434)

- I echo Adam's comments.

- There's a normative downref to RFC 7739, which was not mentioned in the LC
announcement nor is it in the downref registry.

§5.3: Do the "MAY limit" statements added in this section imply corresponding
"MUST/SHOULD not exceed" requirements for the sender? Otherwise, it seems like
a potential interop issue.

---

From: Timothy Winters <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 15:03:31 -0400

Hi Ben,

Thanks for taking the time to review.  We cleaned up the language per
Adam's suggestions and fixed the downref in the next revision.

~Tim

On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 9:27 PM Ben Campbell <[email-masked]> wrote:

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