Subject: [v6ops] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras-05: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 20:11:04 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras-05: 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-v6ops-conditional-ras/

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

Thanks for the well-written document. Please find some comments below:

1) The shepherd write-up says "The responsible Area Director is Ron Bonica."
and questions 7 and 8 say "TBD" and the RFC8174 biolerplate is missing...

2) It seems that ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming should maybe be a
normative reference (and that the abstract should be updated with the
respective RFC number as soon as ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming is
published). Any even if it is not a normative reference, should those docs be
published together in order to refer to the RFC in the abstract (instead of an
draft)?

3) Would it makes sense to also discuss what to do when one ISP is down but
packets from that address space are received at the border router? Should those
packet be forwarded to that ISP anyway or dropped? Or should they be forwarded
to the other ISP with or without address translation?

4) It doesn’t seem right to me that the security consideration section is empty.

5) Lines are too long and therefore cropped in sec 3.2.1 and 3.2.2.