Re: [ippm] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-05: (with COMMENT)

["MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Benjamin,
Thanks for your review, please see replies below.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benjamin Kaduk [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 10:24 PM
> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; Brian Trammell <[e-mail]>;
> Nevil Brownlee <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-05:
> (with COMMENT)
> 
> Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-05: No Objection
> 
...
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I'm glad to see that the "class C" potential confusion is already being
> addressed.  Even having seen that previous discussion, I was still struck by
> how my mind jumped to "address class" when reading it.
[acm] 
Sure. 
It's equally striking to me that this terminology overload 
wasn't flagged in the original development of RFC 2330 (where the
notion of a class C of packets was first introduced, 20 years ago)
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2330#page-19
or when we developed the definition further in RFC 7799, end of section 3.8
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7799#page-8
(much more recently). 
And again on the topic of route metrics in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-route-01#section-3.5
last paragraph.  I'll add the clarifying phrases before this memo
reaches IESG.



> 
> The Abstract claims that this document " deprecates the definition of minimum
> standard-formed packet", but the body text refers only to a "minimal IP
> packet".
[acm] 
Thanks for catching that. "minimal IP packet" is the correct term from
RFC2330, and we'll update the abstract.


> 
> A couple of nits:
> 
> Section 4
> 
>    Two mechanisms require some discussion in the context of standard-
>    formed packets, namely IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Area Networks
>    (6LowPAN, [RFC4494]) and Robust Header Compression (ROHC, [RFC3095]).
>    IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Area Networks (6LowPAN), as defined in
>    [RFC4494] and updated by [RFC6282] with header compression and
>    [RFC6775] with neighbor discovery optimizations proposes solutions
>    for using IPv6 in resource-constrained environments.
> 
> Please put a comma before "proposes"
[acm] OK  ,proposes
;-)

> 
> Maybe I should leave this one for the RFC Editor, but this document uses
> "exemplary" twice when I think "example" is more appropriate -- to me,
> "exemplary" means something like "best in class" and specifically has a
> positive connotation, whereas these usages are for things that have ambivalent
> or negative connotations.
> 
[acm] easy to fix now since we're pushing changes,
and reduce the Q/A with RFC Editors.

thanks again,
Al