On 13th June 2012, Mohamed Boucadair wrote, in part: > > Having the warnings in the draft is good but having a pointer > to a document including a fair and detailed risk analysis is also > valuable and worth to be acknowledged. > > Having that pointer is an "invitation" to people who will deploy > this mechanism (I know some of them who are planning to) to assess > the validity of the claimed threats (and also to consider the > alternatives listed in Section 3 of draft-dec-*). This is > even encouraged given the intended track: "experimental".
(Aside: s/intended track/intended status/ just above) Agreed. The requested addition of the informative reference is not burdensome and seems entirely justified on technical grounds. Please add the informative reference as requested. The IETF tries to provide full information in RFCs so that network users/operators can make fully informed decisions about whether to deploy or enable a particular IETF technology in a particular network. Adding this citation helps enable such network users/operators to locate that additional document which contains a more detailed discussion of the operational risks. In turn, this enables a more fully informed decision about whether to deploy/enable the LineID option -- and where/when it might not be appropriate for a network to deploy/enable the LineID option. I don't see any valid technical or procedural grounds to refuse to add an informative reference. Please add it. Yours, Ran -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
