Hi Jouni,
Three quick responses:
IPv6 NATs - Ah, now I see the concern. We'll rewrite the middlebox material on
IPv6 zero checksums to avoid using NATs as examples.
The "MUST" for the "MAY" requirement in RFC 6936 (#9) doesn't do anything aside
from telling people to go read that requirement
Hi all,
The following reviewers have assignments:
Reviewer LC end Draft
-
Meral Shirazipour 2016-08-25 draft-ietf-hip-multihoming-10
Orit Levin2016-08-25 draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis-12
Paul Kyzivat
Thanks for your review.
On 8/9/2016 4:41 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
it will be unlikely that a new implementer, schooled in the subject
matter, will be able to create a correct implementation.
The material in this draft describes running code. There are at least
two independent, interoperable
On 8/15/16 2:50 PM, Eric C Rosen wrote:
Thanks for your review.
On 8/9/2016 4:41 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
it will be unlikely that a new implementer, schooled in the subject
matter, will be able to create a correct implementation.
The material in this draft describes running code. There are
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your document
shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. For more
information, please s
Hi Elwyn:
Responsible AD Hat on:
I'm going to enter a DISCUSS position, to make sure this point gets
discussion among the IESG before this progresses. The whole point of the
repeated last call was to get feedback on the downref, and this
certainly counts :-)
All hats off:
As an individual
Hi -
I agree with Ben on all points. One inline point that bears reinforcement:
> I believe the working group intent was that the definitions stated in RFC
> 7206 are the ones used in the protocol.
This is exactly right. In fact, this was a very tedious and drawn out process
where we had to
