>> If the WG decides to move this -06 version on for IETF LC >> consideration, this is probably something that can be added when the >> authors are incorporating last call comments. > > Thanks! Chairs, what is missing in the WG LC? Are we done?
Hi Michael, All, Many thanks for all the constructive work upon the work. Good to see all these good considerations of operational security impact discussed. The chairs have looked at all comments during WGLC. >From that we see that there is agreement that the document is correct from a >technical. There is rough consensus that the document does not provide recommendation, and yet only provides data-points if one would utilize the link-locals in such a way. There is a notion of worry that the bare existence of the document will trigger people to utilize the solution. We will take these WG thoughts together with the summary of WG document status in the shepherd write-up for IETF LC. G/ _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
