[dhcwg] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-dhc-v6only-07: (with COMMENT)

[Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dhc-v6only-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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-v6only/



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

Hi,

Thank you for your work on this document, I found it easy to read.

I have a few minor comments/nits that may help improve this document:

Minor comments:

Would it be helpful for the the term dual-stack need to be defined (or the
definition imported)?

    6.  Security Considerations

    ... could be considered a security feature.

Perhaps better for the security ADs to comment, but I wasn't sure whether this
is so much a security feature, or instead just reducing the possible attack
surface.

Nits:
"such approach" => "such an approach"
"IPv6-Only" => "IPv6-only"? (for consistency with other terms)
"operate in IPv6-only network" => "operate in an IPv6-only network"
"Strictly speaking IPv6-only ... " => "More precisely, IPv6-only ..."
" ... declaring a host or (strictly speaking, a host interface) IPv6-only
capable ..." =>  "... declaring a host (technically, a host interface) as
IPv6-only capable ..." "Hypothetically it" => "Hypothetically, it" "in
IPv6-only environment" => "in an IPv6-only environment" "via NAT64 service" =>
"via a NAT64 service"