Hi Mirja, Thanks for your review. Comments inline...
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind <[email protected]> wrote: > Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-6lo-6lobac-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-6lo-6lobac/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 1) Agree with Ben that normative wording should not be used if it just > summarizes things that are specified in a different doc. > > See if my response to Ben is satisfactory for you. > 2) Section 5: "A node implementing [RFC7400] MUST probe its peers for GHC > support before applying GHC." How? > > I deleted this sentence. RFC 7400 discusses it. > 3) Just to make sure I get the security section right: MS/TP networks are > not connected to the Internet or use something like a gateway. Maybe make > this point more clear: basically say that the reason to use IPv6 is NOT > that you want to send these packets eventually directly to the Internet! > > Not sure I wanted to create the impression that MS/TP nodes will never connect to the Internet. I reworked Sections 6 & 12 to make clear that different methods of forming addresses are recommended depending on the scope of the address. Thanks again, Kerry
_______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
