Subject: [L2tpext] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-l2tpext-keyed-ipv6-tunnel-07: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2016 13:55:48 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-l2tpext-keyed-ipv6-tunnel-07: 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-l2tpext-keyed-ipv6-tunnel/

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

I have just a few minor comments:

- 1, 2nd paragraph: The first sentence is convoluterd; can it be
simplified?

-- "upon receipt on each tunnel": on receipt of packets?

-6: Please expand OAM, MEP, and MIP on first mention.

-11.2: RFCs 1981, 4623, 4720, 5085. 5883, and 5885 are all cited in the
context of 2119 language. They should probably be normative references.
(In my opinion, even citations for optional features need normative
references if they are needed to fully understand the features.)