Hi Eric, > On 8 Feb 2021, at 15:50, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Tim, > > Better very late than never… Having some time this week to make some progress > on this I-D... I hope to publish a -22 before the IETF-110.
Good luck with that! > Some comments on the outdated review are prefixed with EV> > > Thank you for your review :-) The rewritten sections look a lot better. Everything you’ve said below inline seems ok, but I guess we’ll be re-reading the fine final draft soon? > There are seven pages on transition technologies; might that be better > homed in > a -bis of RFC 4942? > > EV> we tried to be exhaustive and gather all (?) references in this single > document even at the expense of 7 pages. Fair enough, and a -bis of 4942 could be another epic undertaking! > The recommendation to use PI for a larger network implicitly means no > NPTv6? > > EV> the text has been modified in more recent versions. Seems a good compromise, though invariably contentious. > p.13 > > A lot of text on something hardly used? > > EV> let's leave the SeND text here anyway for archival __ I guess so, but that “over a decade” since specification is soon two decades :) Best wishes, Tim _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
