[DMM] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring-15: (with COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 17 March 2020 22:40 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: dmm@ietf.org
Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BF3C3A092F; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 15:40:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring@ietf.org, dmm-chairs@ietf.org, dmm@ietf.org, Dapeng Liu <maxpassion@gmail.com>, maxpassion@gmail.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.121.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Message-ID: <158448482815.32043.12661861503952267644@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 15:40:28 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmm/T4Z2XEUVrlKEMwqTuBqlQ0C1YvM>
Subject: [DMM] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring-15: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group <dmm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmm>, <mailto:dmm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmm/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm>, <mailto:dmm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 22:40:40 -0000

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring-15: 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:


Thanks for addressing my Discuss and Comment points!

I think the current placement of the references to RFCs 8221 and 8247 make it sound
like they are references for IPsec and IKEv2 respectively, and not "just"
the best-practices for configuring them.  Moving the references later
in the sentences would probably help, though I'd recommend adding another
sentence "The current guidance for IPsec and IKEv2 usage is given in
[RFC8221] and [RFC8247], respectively" to be fully clear about why they are
being referenced.