[bmwg] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-07: (with COMMENT)

Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com> Wed, 07 June 2017 19:17 UTC

Return-Path: <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietf.org
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8F85129407; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 12:17:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking@ietf.org, Al Morton <acmorton@att.com>, bmwg-chairs@ietf.org, acmorton@att.com, bmwg@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.53.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <149686304373.2650.7741894590270773104.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 12:17:23 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/OXNhnj2KT-KBIyd5rYlE5y7ZHGk>
Subject: [bmwg] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-07: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bmwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 19:17:24 -0000

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-07: 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:


* I am surprised that this document does not use (and does not even mention)
the Well Known Prefix (64:ff9b::/96) for the algorithmic mapping between IPv4
and IPv6 on translators as specified by RFC6052. Is there a reason why this is
omitted? * It is not clear from the document whether the time taken by the
DNS64 resolution procedure is included in the latency measurements. It might be
useful to note this.