[Softwires] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe-06: (with COMMENT)

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Mon, 26 September 2016 21:58 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietf.org
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 863E212B01C; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:58:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.34.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <147492709451.4992.18088916849265763856.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:58:14 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/VkFfZezZhLo9HhIAsvcCO8uldM4>
Cc: draft-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe@ietf.org, softwires@ietf.org, softwire-chairs@ietf.org, cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn
Subject: [Softwires] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/softwires/>
List-Post: <mailto:softwires@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 21:58:14 -0000

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe-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:


- Abstract and Title: Neither the Abstract or Title seem to describe the
contents of the draft. It seems to be about prioritization among multiple
s46 mechanisms. It might be worth mentioning that in the abstract. (Also,
the title header for pages 2+ does not match the title page title)

- section 3: "This may lead to setting a different IPv4 service
   continuity mechanism than the one initially preferred by the network

Are there consequences of that that should be discussed? E.g. bid-down
attacks, ability to direct packets via a compromised path, etc? (I'm not
saying there are; I'm just asking.)