Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit-04: 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 http://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: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - 2.1 says nodes SHOULD forward rfc4727 experimental headers, but earlier said that its ok (nodes MAY) default to not forwarding packets with experimental headers. I think you need to add an "unless otherwise stated here" to the statement about defaults for experimental headers. - section 4: Is it wise to ask IANA to "redirect" users from one (empty) registry to another? That could be the start of a slippery slope turning IANA registries into a miasma of hypertext;-) Maybe it'd be better to ask that IANA mark that registry as having being replaced by this new one. Also - what if someone else asks IANA to add an entry to the currently empty registry but not the new one - is it clear what should happen in that case? -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
