[Dots] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-dots-multihoming-11: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dots-multihoming-11: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dots-multihoming/



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

Thank you for the work put into this document: it is short, easy to read.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Valery Smyslov for the shepherd's write-up including the WG
consensus (including "not too many reviews") *BUT* it lacks the justification
of the intended status.

Authors may also expect an internet directorate review by Dave Thaler, the
delay in the review (caused by late addition of this document to the telechat
agenda) should not hinder the publication process though.

I also second Erik Kline's DISCUSS about source address selection.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

Note for the shepherding AD: missing consensus boilerplate.

## Section 4.2

Suggest to state the obvious in bullet 2, i.e., that addresses from one PvD is
used when communicating over this PvD (to be symmetric with bullet 1). This is
purely cosmetic.

## Section 4.3

Another cosmetic suggestion: please use CPE1 and CPE2, again for symmetry.

## Section 5.1

I am always uneasy when I read normative MUST / SHOULD in an informational
document but the authors may ignore this comment.

There is a "SHOULD use the certificate" without specifying when the SHOULD does
not apply.

## Section 5.2

Another cosmetic comment, the graphical convention of figures 7 & 8 (i.e.,
having the DOTS clients in a central dotted box) should also be used in figure
6.