Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-6lo-prefix-registration-12: Discuss
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-6lo-prefix-registration/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ** As other ADs have balloted, [I-D.kuehlewind-update-tag] has no standing. Section 2.1 appears to state that “extends” and “amends” are synonyms for “updates”. I take that to mean that the processes associated with the “updates tag” apply. As such, the document is not self-consistent: -- Section 5 says this documents extends RFC7400, but this document isn’t included in the “Updates meta-data” (RFC8929 is also noted as “extending” but is included in the list of documents referenced by the update tag) -- The Updates meta-data tag and abstract say RFC6553 is updated, but the body of the text doesn’t explain how. There isn’t even a reference to it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you to Dan Romascanu for the GENART review. ** Section 13.2. The registry field names used in Table 3 are not correct. Per https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters/icmpv6-parameters.xhtml#sixlowpan-capability-bits: -- s/Capability Bit/Bit/ -- s/Meaning/Description/ _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
