Re: [6lo] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-6lobac-06: (with COMMENT)

["Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <[e-mail]>]

Sounds good to me.

> Am 28.02.2017 um 23:55 schrieb Kerry Lynn <[e-mail]>:
> 
> Hi Mirja,
> 
> Thanks for your review.  Comments inline...
> 
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-6lo-6lobac-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-6lo-6lobac/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 1) Agree with Ben that normative wording should not be used if it just
> summarizes things that are specified in a different doc.
> 
> See if my response to Ben is satisfactory for you.
>  
> 2) Section 5: "A node implementing [RFC7400] MUST probe its peers for GHC
> support before applying GHC." How?
> 
> I deleted this sentence.  RFC 7400 discusses it.
>  
> 3) Just to make sure I get the security section right: MS/TP networks are
> not connected to the Internet or use something like a gateway. Maybe make
> this point more clear: basically say that the reason to use IPv6 is NOT
> that you want to send these packets eventually directly to the Internet!
> 
> Not sure I wanted to create the impression that MS/TP nodes will never
> connect to the Internet.  I reworked Sections 6 & 12 to make clear that
> different methods of forming addresses are recommended depending on
> the scope of the address.
> 
> Thanks again, Kerry
>