Re: [v6ops] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis-06: (with COMMENT)

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, that all sounds good.

Ben.

> On Oct 27, 2017, at 9:07 AM, Tommy Pauly <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Oct 24, 2017, at 7:30 PM, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis-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-v6ops-rfc6555bis/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Hi Ben,
> 
> Thanks for the comments! The update at:
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis-07
> 
> Should address all of these. Responses inline.
> 
> Thanks,
> Tommy
> 
>> 
>> Substantive Comments:
>> 
>> - I agree with Adam's comments about normative language.
> 
> Yes, us too. These have been cleaned up.
>> 
>> -4, 2nd paragraph, last sentence:
>> "across networks" and "network changes" are ambiguous. I think you are talking
>> about moving a device from one access network to another, but "across networks"
>> could be interpreted to mean "sending the data across networks". "Network
>> changes" could refer to changes in network configuration.
> 
> Fixed the wording to be more clear that the information shouldn't be shared between different interfaces, and that changing a device's network attachment should clear the data.
>> 
>> -10: I don't understand what you mean by "direct" vs "indirect" security
>> considerations.
> 
> Removed the line about "direct" security considerations.
>> 
>> Editorial Comments:
>> 
>> - Abstract: Please mention that this obsoletes 6555 in the abstract. (The intro
>> already does so.)
> 
> Mentioned.
>> 
>> - 7.2, last paragraph: The pattern "... recommended at 2 seconds" does not make
>> grammatical sense. I would assume there are missing words, but I see the same
>> pattern occur several times in the document. I suggest "recommended to be..."
> 
> Switched to "to be" throughout the document.
> 
>> 
>> 
>