Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs-01.txt

From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 09:48:57 +0100 (CET)

On Tue, 2 Jan 2018, [email-masked] wrote:

> - Should PVD be included?
> - Add a redirects section -- I don't remember what this was in reference to.
> - The suggestion for an appendix containing a plain list of the requirements.

I'm reading -01.

"The source address or other header fields (not common)"

Don't we want this to become more common? I do. We have RFCs talking about 
this and it's one way of solving the multihoming problem we're fairly 
actively discussing?

3.4

Typo: "ot police"

4.x.

sFlow and IPFIX is in wide use today. Don't we want to mention these at 
all?

5.3.

Typo: "to calcualte the"

"elucidation" is a word I had to look up. Is this commonly used in these 
kinds of documents?

5.4

Filter ICMP echo and reply by default??? I find this highly controversial 
and I do not agree with it.

6.

Typo: "only addressing wil"

Summary:

While I do not oppose to much in this document, it's a bit confusing what 
the document wants to be. It's currently informational, but contains a lot 
of RFC2119 language. I realise that RFC7084 is also informational, is this 
the kind of document we're after?

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [email-masked]