[IPv6]Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-08: (with COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-comp-rtg-hdr/



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

Thank you to Elwyn Davies for the GENART review.

** Section 12.  The abstract said “another purpose is to demonstrate that the
security considerations, described in this document, can be addressed with
access control lists.”  Based on the text in this section it isn’t clear what
the unknown (requiring an experiment) is around implementing these Security
Considerations.

** Section 14.  The nature of the experiment isn’t clear in the following cases:
-- At the highest level, how do we know the experiment was a success?

-- Per “Effort required to secure”, what is the units of this effort?

-- Per “Effectiveness of risk mitigation with ACLs”, how is one expected to
answer this question?

-- Per “Effectiveness and sufficiency of OAM mechanism
      -  Did PING work?
      -  Did TRACEROUTE work?
      -  Did Wireshark work?
      -  Did TCPDUMP work?”

In what way is support in these tools an open-ended question requiring
experimentation on a production network?  Can’t one check functionality/support
per a given version number of these tools?