[ippm] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-07: (with COMMENT)

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

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-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/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-ippm-ioam-conf-state/



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


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-07
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

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

Special thanks to Marcus Ihlar for the shepherd's detailed write-up including
the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS

### Abstract

This is a very long sentence... Consider shortening it.

The `echo request/reply mechanisms used in IPv6 ...` would benefit of being
qualified (perhaps with 'generic' or 'specified' ?).

### Section 1

The IPv6 node information query, while sent over ICMPv6, is not really an
'echo/request' exchange, hence the title of this RFC is not really adequate. I
have no suggestion though.

### Section 2.2

When defining "TTL" please also add that this is the hop-limit field in the
IPv6 header (which has no TTL field).

### Section 3.2.1 and other sections including 3.2.6 "Must be zero"

Please do not forget to specify the receiver's behavior when receiving reserved
bits that are no all 0.

### Section 3.2.3

Explaining what "SoP" is would ease the reading.

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues.

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments