Subject: [core] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-core-hop-limit-06: (with COMMENT)

From: Warren Kumari via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 06:04:21 -0700

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-core-hop-limit-06: 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-core-hop-limit/

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

Firstly, thank you for writing this - also, thank you for the discussions and
addressing the comments from the OpsDir review (and much thanks to Scott for
providing the review). I agree that this should have an Updates: tab, but I
understand the arguments against it.

There are some very good notes in the other ballots, which I really think need
to be addressed, including such clear things as Suresh's: "CoAP messages
received with a Hop-Limit option ... ***greater than '255'*** MUST be rejected"
-- Since the field is only 8 bits long this will never happen, right? If so,
this text about >255 needs to be removed.