Subject: [v6ops] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras-06: (with COMMENT)

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2018 09:56:59 -0700

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras-06: 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I, too, was confused about the references to
ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming in the abstract, so would support the
fixes previously suggested. Furthermore, the places where that document is
named should be replaced with direct citations to it, which can then be updated
to point to the corresponding RFC if it gets published in time or if it gets
converted to a normative reference. Using 'the
"ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming" draft' is not going to age well since it
won't always be a draft.

In Section 5.1, I wonder if it's worth pointing out that by supporting
enterprise multihoming the techniques described in this document can provide a
privacy benefit to users, since remote peers view their traffic as having
multiple source addresses?