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

[Tommy Pauly <[e-mail]>]

> 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 <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.

> 
>