Suresh Krishnan's Yes on draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming-08: (with COMMENT)

Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker <> Thu, 27 June 2019 09:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 386171200B8; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 02:04:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker <>
To: "The IESG" <>
Cc:, Ron Bonica <>,,,
Subject: Suresh Krishnan's Yes on draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming-08: (with COMMENT)
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.98.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Suresh Krishnan <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 02:04:32 -0700
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 09:04:32 -0000

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming-08: Yes

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 IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

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


* Section 3.3 Paragraph 2

The destination address of H41 seems to be wrong. Shouldn't it be
"D=2001:db8:0:b020::41" instead of "D=2001:db8:0:b010::41"?

* Section 4 Page 22

I think this text needs to be rephrased as a requirement rather than a two

"Any traffic that needs to exit the site will eventually hit a SADR-
   capable router.  Once that traffic enters the SADR-capable domain,
   then it will not leave that domain until it exits the site."

* Section 5.2.1.

Not sure what the reference to RFC8415 accomplishes in this contact. Is it just
a pointer to DHCPv6? If so it needs to be earlier in the document. If there is
a more relevant reason, I think the pointer needs to be more specific (e.g. a
section in RFC8415).

* Section 7.3

I think a reference to something like RFC6824 might be useful here