On 2018-11-25 06:04, Joe Touch wrote:
> Equally worrisome that this doc appears to make recommendations that imply
> BCP, when it is merely informational.
>
> IMO, it’s overstepping to do so.
Possibly, but it's not forbidden by rule, as far as I know. However, the
draft is inconsistent in its use of SHOULD vs should (see my previous
message for an example of a lower case should which might or might not
be intended pseudo-normatively).
Brian
>
> Joe
>
>> On Nov 23, 2018, at 11:53 AM, Michael Scharf
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Reviewer: Michael Scharf
>> Review result: Ready
>>
>> This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
>> ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
>> primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
>> authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the
>> IETF
>> discussion list for information.
>>
>> When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
>> review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please
>> always CC [email protected] if you reply to or forward this review.
>>
>> I have reviewed draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering-06. There are no apparent
>> transport issues. The proposed filtering could slow down the deployment of
>> experimental protocols that use IPv6 options, but the tradeoffs are explained
>> in the document.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Michael
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
OPSEC mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
