Subject: [Roll] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration-06: (with COMMENT)
From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
To: "The IESG" <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 01:04:46 -0700
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration-06: 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-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration/

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

- I don't get the update model - if all MPL forwarders have
to use the same parameters but they don't all do DHCPv6 at
the same time, then won't new parameter settings take a
while to propagate to most of the network? And won't that
cause a problem? Don't you need a "start using this set of
parameters in N seconds" field in the dhcp option to handle
that? This is not a DISCUSS as I think it relats to Barry's
so please try address this when addressing that.

- please do not pretend rfc 3315 is a solution for anything
unless you mean it and I don't think you do. 3315 is I think
the canonical example for mythical security:-(