Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe-06: 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 https://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: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Abstract and Title: Neither the Abstract or Title seem to describe the contents of the draft. It seems to be about prioritization among multiple s46 mechanisms. It might be worth mentioning that in the abstract. (Also, the title header for pages 2+ does not match the title page title) - section 3: "This may lead to setting a different IPv4 service continuity mechanism than the one initially preferred by the network side" Are there consequences of that that should be discussed? E.g. bid-down attacks, ability to direct packets via a compromised path, etc? (I'm not saying there are; I'm just asking.) _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
