Subject: [OPSEC] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering-08: (with COMMENT)

From: Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2021 04:40:18 -0700

Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering-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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering/

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

Thanks for the efforts on the document.

I think most of my comments have already been mentioned by my fellow ADs.

I have got one in addition -

* Section 2.3 : says --
      o  Permit this IPv6 EH or IPv6 Option type.

   o  Discard (and log) packets containing this IPv6 EH or option type.

   o  Reject (and log) packets containing this IPv6 EH or option type
      (where the packet drop is signaled with an ICMPv6 error message).

  I believe logs are mentioned here for a good reason but I haven't seen any
  mention of logging in any of the Operational and Interoperability Impact sub
  sections. I was expecting some discussions somewhere as "log" is mentioned in
  this section, otherwise this mention of log is out of context in the document.

  Is there any particular reason for not mentioning (and log) for the permit
  case?