Mahesh Jethanandani has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-spring-dhc-distribute-srv6-locator-dhcp-13: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-dhc-distribute-srv6-locator-dhcp/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 2, paragraph 0 > This document leverages the terms defined in > [I-D.ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis] and [RFC8986]. The reader is assumed to be > familiar with this terminology. It would be helpful to identify which terms are being reused in this document from these other documents. Section 4.1, paragraph 0 > The Identity Association for SRv6 Locator (IA_SRV6_LOCATOR) option is > used to carry an IA_SRV6_LOCATOR, the parameters associated with the > IA_SRV6_LOCATOR, and the SRv6 Locator associated with the > IA_SRV6_LOCATOR. Not clear this option is part of SRH, DHCP, or something else. This is apparent only later when reading sections, e.g., Section 5.3. Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more guidance: * Term "man"; alternatives might be "individual", "people", "person" * Term "traditional"; alternatives might be "classic", "classical", "common", "conventional", "customary", "fixed", "habitual", "historic", "long-established", "popular", "prescribed", "regular", "rooted", "time-honored", "universal", "widely used", "widespread" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NIT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. Section 3, paragraph 6 > At the same time, SRv6 policies need to be configured on CPEs to > steer the service traffic between CPEs to the specified SRv6 > forwarding path. The SRv6 policy can be manually configured > statically or issued through the controller, and its specific > configuration method is out of the scope of this document. s/manually configured statically/manually configured/. s/through the controller, and its/through the controller. The specific/ Section 3, paragraph 7 > * The configuration is very complex. The complexity comes from the mobility requirements of CPEs, not from the configuration itself. If anything, the result of mobility is why the configuration is complex. Maybe say: “Mobility requirement of CPE increases complexity”. Section 4.1, paragraph 3 > - Option-Code: OPTION_IA_SRV6_LOCATOR, the option code for the > Identity Association for SRv6 Locator. The current value early > assigned by IANA is 149. s/The current value early assigned by IANA is 149/The current value of 149 was requested as part of an early assignment from IANA/ Section 7, paragraph 0 > IANA has early assigned the following new DHCPv6 Option Codes in the > "Option Codes" registry maintained at > https://www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6-parameters. s/IANA has early assigned/IANA through its early assignment policy assigned/ Section 8, paragraph 1 > As discussed in Section 23 of [I-D.ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis]: DHCP lacks > end-to-end encryption between clients and servers; thus, hijacking, > tampering, and eavesdropping attacks are all possible as a result. s/attacks are all possible/attacks are possible/ These URLs in the document did not return content: * http://www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6-parameters: Section 4, paragraph 5 > RV6_LOCATOR are in the IA_SRV6_LOCATOR- Options field. An IA_SRV6_LOCATOR opt > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This word seems to be formatted incorrectly. Consider fixing the spacing or removing the hyphen completely. Section 4.2, paragraph 2 > t unsigned integer. - SRv6-Locator: 0-16 octets. This field encodes the SRv6 > ^^^^ If specifying a range, consider using an en dash instead of a hyphen. _______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
