Thanks Ron for the review, your 2 points about the new RFC 2460bis are right to the point :-)
-éric From: OPSEC <opsec-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net> Date: Monday 17 April 2017 at 22:02 To: Gunter Van De Velde <guntervandeveld...@icloud.com>, "opsec@ietf.org" <opsec@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [OPSEC] WGLC for draft-ietf-opsec-v6 Hi Gunter, I support publication of this draft, but see a small problem in Section 2.2.2. In Section 2.2.2, the authors reference “ietf-6man-hbh-header-handling”. This draft has been allowed to die on the vine, but artifacts can be seen in the following text from RFC2460bis. “ NOTE: While [RFC2460<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2460>] required that all nodes must examine and process the Hop-by-Hop Options header, it is now expected that nodes along a packet's delivery path only examine and process the Hop-by- Hop Options header if explicitly configured to do so.” You might want to update the draft with this change to 2460 in mind. Ron From: OPSEC [mailto:opsec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gunter Van De Velde Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 3:39 AM To: opsec@ietf.org Subject: [OPSEC] WGLC for draft-ietf-opsec-v6 This is to open a two week WGLC for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsec-v6. If you have not read it, please do so now. You may send nits to the author, but substantive discussion should go to the list. I will close the call on 26 April 2017 G/ Sent from iCloud
_______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list OPSEC@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
