Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-08: (with COMMENT)
Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Wed, 04 July 2018 10:33 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36439126F72; Wed, 4 Jul 2018 03:33:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis@ietf.org, Robert Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, 6man-chairs@ietf.org, bob.hinden@gmail.com, ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-08: (with COMMENT)
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.81.3
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <153070040421.27435.6531867876717926845.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2018 03:33:24 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Ynhn3VCHSllfZCtSYoT2z1eTSV8>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2018 10:33:24 -0000
Mirja Kühlewind 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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Two comments that I would really like to see addressed before publication, however, I don't think they would warrant a discuss: 1) I agree with Adam comments but I would like to say that I am even more concerned about the use of normative language. Especially, sections 5.2 and 5.3 (maybe others; did check further) seems to be word-by-word copies of the text in RFC8200, including use of normative language. This doesn't seem to be appropriate as it would mean that if you would ever want to update RFC8200, you also have to update this RFC. Please consider re-wording these section appropriately to make sure that only RFC8200 is defining the IPv6 protocol normatively and this document only points at the right positions in RFC8200 and provide additional discussion/background where needed. 2) sec 5.12: "Nodes that may be deployed in environments where they would benefit from such early congestion notification SHOULD implement [RFC3168]. In such cases, the updates presented in [RFC8311] may also be relevant." Thanks for pointer to ECN, however, this advise seems quite misleading. First I guess the more useful reference here would be RFC8087. But more important, ECN can/should only be used if there is a feedback mechanism in the transport layer, therefore using ECN is a transport layer decision and the only thing the IP layer at the end host can do is to make sure that there is an interface for the upper layer to set the bits. I didn't make this point a discussion because the sentence is not entirely wrong (just not very helpful either). But I really think this sentence needs clarification! (Also thanks to Magnus who pointed at this sentences already in his TSV-ART review!)
- Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man… Mirja Kühlewind