Subject: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa-08: (with COMMENT)

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 13:55:16 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa-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-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa/

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

Thanks for the work on this. I have a couple of minor comments:

 - There is an IPR disclosure with possible royalties. The shepherd report says
 there were no comments in the WG. Was the WG reminded of it?

§9: "Existing OSPF security considerations and stronger authentication and
manual key management mechanisms are specified in [RFC7474] SHOULD be
considered for OSPF deployments."

Could this say something stronger than "SHOULD be considered"? I'm fine with
the SHOULD part, but simply considering it may not be that helpful.