Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit-04: (with COMMENT)

["Stephen Farrell" <[e-mail]>]

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit-04: 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 http://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:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit/



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


- 2.1 says nodes SHOULD forward rfc4727 experimental
headers, but earlier said that its ok (nodes MAY) default
to not forwarding packets with experimental headers. I
think you need to add an "unless otherwise stated here"
to the statement about defaults for experimental headers.

- section 4: Is it wise to ask IANA to "redirect" users
from one (empty) registry to another? That could be the
start of a slippery slope turning IANA registries into a
miasma of hypertext;-) Maybe it'd be better to ask that
IANA mark that registry as having being replaced by this
new one. Also - what if someone else asks IANA to add an
entry to the currently empty registry but not the new one
- is it clear what should happen in that case?