[v6ops] Re: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-nd-considerations-06

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Xipeng; that would be perfect.  I appreciate your considering my
comment.

Barry

On Sun, Oct 27, 2024 at 5:47 PM Xipengxiao <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Barry,
>
> Thank you very much for your review and feedback.  We appreciate it.
>
> Regarding your concern that the following statement is too broad:
>
> "Since all the three causes of ND issues are addressed, MBBv6 solves all
> ND issues."
>
> We understand where you are coming from.  We meant to say: since MBBv6
> addresses all 3 causes of the ND issues discussed, it will address all the
> ND issues discussed.  Therefore, we will make this clearer by changing the
> statement to:
>
> Since all the three causes of ND issues are addressed, all the ND issues
> discussed in Section 2.4 are also addressed.
>
> We will do the same for the statement in Section 3.2.
>
> Hope this addresses your concern.  Thank you very much.
>
> XiPeng & co-authors
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2024 6:30 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-nd-considerations-06
>
> Reviewer: Barry Leiba
> Review result: Ready
>
> Thanks for this concise, useful collection/summary that will surely be a
> good reference and index going forward.  It seems quite ready to go.  I
> have only a small nit-level comment; please take it or leave it as you see
> appropriate:
>
> — Section 3.1 —
>
>    Since all the three causes of ND issues are addressed, MBBv6 solves
>    all ND issues.
>
> “MBBv6 solves all ND issues” seems an overly broad statement.  :-)  I know
> what you mean, but I don’t think this sentence helps say it.  I suggest
> just removing it, but you could try to re-word.
>
> (Similar comment for FBBv6-P2MP at the end of 3.2.)
>
>
>