[OSPF] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-09: (with COMMENT)

"Spencer Dawkins" <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Sun, 26 June 2016 03:21 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCF1A127078; Sat, 25 Jun 2016 20:21:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.24.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20160626032124.17217.72089.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2016 20:21:24 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/FReugPn4g7XvdygYfRy6-X5OsY0>
Cc: ospf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3@ietf.org, ospf-chairs@ietf.org, wenhu.lu@gmail.com
Subject: [OSPF] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-09: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ospf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 03:21:25 -0000

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-09: 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:


This was nice work.

I did have one question - I don't think it would be a likely problem, but
is it worth pointing out that you're taking OSPFv3 payloads that might
have been sized for IPv6, and encapsulating them as IPv4 payloads that
might have a smaller MTU?

If you tell me this isn't a problem, I'll believe you, of course, but I
needed to ask :-)