Re: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-08: (with COMMENT)

Hi Ben,

Thanks for taking the time to review.  We cleaned up the language per
Adam's suggestions and fixed the downref in the next revision.

~Tim

On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 9:27 PM Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:

> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-08: 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/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/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> (I mostly reviewed the diff from RFC 6434)
>
> - I echo Adam's comments.
>
> - There's a normative downref to RFC 7739, which was not mentioned in the
> LC
> announcement nor is it in the downref registry.
>
> §5.3: Do the "MAY limit" statements added in this section imply
> corresponding
> "MUST/SHOULD not exceed" requirements for the sender? Otherwise, it seems
> like
> a potential interop issue.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>