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

Hi Alissa,

Thanks for taking the time to review.   I updated to capital letters and
removed the Section 9 sentence.

~Tim

On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 12:56 PM Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:

> Alissa Cooper 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 support Adam's comments concerning the use of normative keywords. In
> particular this sentence in 6.3 is in need of a normative "RECOMMENDED" I
> think:
>
> "It is
>    recommended, as described in [RFC8064], that unless there is a
>    specific requirement for MAC addresses to be embedded in an IID,
>    nodes follow the procedure in [RFC7217] to generate SLAAC-based
>    addresses, rather than using [RFC4862]."
>
> In Section 9, this sentence seems unlikely to remain up-to-date for the
> life of
> this document: "The IETF dnssd WG is defining solutions for DNS-based
> service
>            discovery in multi-link networks."
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>