IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6lo] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update-17: (with COMMENT)

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Wed, 04 April 2018 06:23 UTC

Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AE4A126CC4; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 23:23:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y82sTEaNLP2j; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 23:23:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A938B124B17; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 23:23:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2202; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1522822990; x=1524032590; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Xt5SYAWU4tafXiKhoL5YdQb2SPSHcKeQnu3ZMoK0QV8=; b=hmbHvFGhaVcGH0LnqIsorWBk813FoRkMBDPHoG+0H2ttZODiB0ClQ/wd Ck3xYUPcgjNGgCCgMkUyxR7thF/LgAACjfLDR59IIzSIUFdGxQf2zCnTM FMkmVsW5AuVntXE0mNWOm+9Thwf28rWDXM27lcvvEE27GFKTYlCWPM0wd o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0C+AABxbsRa/5JdJa1dGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYNCYW8og1+IAI0HgXSBD5JVFIFmCyOEYAIahCohNBgBAgEBAQEBAQJrHAyFIwEEASMRRQULAgEIGgImAgICMBUQAgQBDQWFBQgPrDmCHIhGgiAFgQmGWYFUP4EMIoJigxECAQIBgSUBEgEfgwAwgiQChyKQGQgChVCIXYEwg1mHLocmgW+GQQIREwGBJAEcOGFYEQhwFWQBghiCSIhIhT5vARCLKYI2AQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.48,405,1517875200"; d="scan'208";a="377572919"
Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 04 Apr 2018 06:23:09 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (xch-aln-001.cisco.com [173.36.7.11]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w346N9bv009604 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 4 Apr 2018 06:23:09 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 01:23:09 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 01:23:09 -0500
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "dthaler@microsoft.com" <dthaler@microsoft.com>
CC: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update@ietf.org>, Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>, "6lo-chairs@ietf.org" <6lo-chairs@ietf.org>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update-17: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHTy7lKvj+9+1gQPEuP6f+T1zC9/aPwI1r2
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 06:23:08 +0000
Message-ID: <CB38E612-AFD4-44E4-AB0A-1AE4F58553DE@cisco.com>
References: <152280747362.24073.12482880754689636320.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <152280747362.24073.12482880754689636320.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/G4152oAvEU0U5QKcamcZUEpS5G8>
Subject: Re: [6lo] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update-17: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6lo/>
List-Post: <mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 06:23:12 -0000

Hello Ben;

The down reference issues were added as part of the IESG review; the refs were informative before but it was pointed that since they were referenced in the terminology this made them normative. CC’ing Adrian.

Can we live with it?

The MUST in section 3 is also the result of of IESG review; we debated it with Dave and Warren but I guess there is no strong opinion so another proposal would be welcome. CC’ing Dave. Would you suggest an alternate wording?

Cheers,

Pascal

> Le 4 avr. 2018 à 04:04, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> a écrit :
> 
> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update-17: 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-6lo-rfc6775-update/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> §3, last paragraph: The MUST seems like a statement of fact.
> 
> §12.1: There are normative downrefs to RFC 4919, RFC 6606, RFC 7102, RFC 7228
> that were not mentioned in the IETF LC announcement, nor are they in the
> downref registry.
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email