Subject: [dhcwg] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-dhc-v6only-07: (with COMMENT)

From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 05:23:54 -0700

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dhc-v6only-07: 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-dhc-v6only/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

A few editorial nits:

-- Section 3.3.1.  Editorial. “w/o” --> “without”

-- Section 3.3.1.  Editorial.
OLD
Therefore the
   following update is proposed to Section 2.3 of [RFC2563]"
NEW
Therefore, the following update is made to Section 2.3 of [RFC2563].

-- Section 3.4  Please review the SECDIR review for revised text on V6ONLY_WAIT
(and thank you Russ Housley for doing the review)

---

From: Jen Linkova <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 07:53:57 +1000

Hi Roman,

Fixed.

> (and thank you Russ Housley for doing the review)

Oops, thanks for pointing this out - I did fix the normative part of
the comment but missed that editorial comment.
Also Benjamin's comment about the word 'minimum' in the definition is
now addressed.

Proof link: https://github.com/furry13/v6only-dhc/commit/f38d12bdcba79d7471a055040ac83112144ef75b#diff-8bd8b06927b9093ad11128f72a76583c
;)
The changes will be integrated in -08.

-- 
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry