Re: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Tim Chown <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

The authors have discussed this issue, and we would like to propose simply removing the line in 1.1 that says

"This document assumes that all IPv6 nodes meet the minimum requirements specified here."

given it is rather superfluous.

Would that be acceptable?

We'll attend to the comments soon!

Best wishes,
Tim 

> On 5 Jul 2018, at 13:41, Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-08: Discuss
> 
> 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-6man-rfc6434-bis/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> This is a pretty minor point and should be easy to resolve, but there seems to
> be an internal inconsistency that is introduced with the new section on
> Constrained Devices.  In particular, Section 1.1 has a short note:
> 
>   This document assumes that all IPv6 nodes meet the minimum
>   requirements specified here.
> 
> but Section 15 says something a bit different:
> 
>   [...] While the requirements of this
>   document are RECOMMENDED for all nodes, including constrained nodes,
>   compromises may need to be made in certain cases.
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thanks for doing this work; it's quite helpful to have all this information
> assembled in one place!
> 
> I have a few comments, broken out by section.
> 
> Section 1
> 
> ]draft-thomson-postel-was-wrong and some discussion I've seen surrounding it
> has made me wonder whether we are best served by continuing to "blindly cite"
> Postel's Principle.  The principles it espouses do remain true in some aspects,
> but there seems to be a tradeoff against other concerns as well.
> 
> Section 5.3
> 
>   A host MAY impose a limit on the maximum number of non-padding
>   options allowed in a destination options and hop-by-hop extension
>   headers. [...]
> 
> nit: is there a singular/plural mismatch here?
> 
> Section 13
> 
> Why is the phrase "SSL VPN" preferable to the phrase "TLS VPN"?
> SSL is deprecated; the IETF protocol is TLS.
> 
> Section 15
> 
>   If an IPv6 node is concerned about the impact of IPv6 message power
>   consumption, it SHOULD want to implement the recommendations in
>   [RFC7772].
> 
> Do we really need to assign motive to IPv6 nodes?
> 
>