[OPSEC] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering-08: (with COMMENT)

[Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering-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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering/



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

I love a good "good advice" document where such advice is missing in an
important area.  Thanks for doing this.

General feedback:

* There are several places where "*not*" appears.  Is this necessary?

* There are so few BCP 14 keywords in this document, which is Informational
anyway, that you might consider not using it/them at all.

Section 1:

* "... it is possible that some of the measured packet drops be the result of
..." -- s/be/are/

* "... likely to be much more permissive that a filtering policy ..." --
s/that/than/

* "This document completes and complements the considerations for protecting
the control plane from packets containing IP options that can be found in
[RFC6192]." -- Should this document formally update that one?  It's also
Informational.

* "Section 2 of this document specifies the terminology and conventions
employed throughout this document.  Section 3 of this document ..." -- You can
get rid of "this document" everywhere in this paragraph except at the end of
the first sentence.

Section 3.3:

Most of the forward links in the table are broken because the full section
numbers got wrapped.  Can this weird rendering get fixed?