Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-grand-05: (with COMMENT)

Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <> Tue, 29 June 2021 20:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FF373A0938; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 13:44:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <>
To: The IESG <>
Cc:,,, Bob Hinden <>,
Subject: Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-grand-05: (with COMMENT)
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.33.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Roman Danyliw <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 13:44:33 -0700
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 20:44:34 -0000

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6man-grand-05: 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
for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


Thank you to Scott Kelly for the SECDIR review.

** Section 5.3.  Does the outcome of any of the documented scenarios change if
the host has DAD turned off (per Section 5.3.1, Step #4 and Section 5.3.2, Step

** Section 10.  It would be useful to reiterate with a back reference the
unlikely, but possible condition where the duplicated address temporarily gets
the traffic from the rightful owner (noted in Section 5.3.2).