Subject: [ippm] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-14: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2019 10:37:38 -0800

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-14: 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-ippm-initial-registry/

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

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Thank you for quickly addressing my previous DISCUSS (kept here for history)

Regards,

-éric

== DISCUSS ==

-- Section 4.2.2 --
Easy to fix: there is no 'protocol' field in the IPv6 header but a 'next
header' one that has the same semantic.

-- Section 9.2.2. --
Also easy to fix, 'next header' for ICMPv6 is not 01 but 58 (decimal) and
'ICMPv6 echo request' is 128 (decimal).

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 4.2.2 -- and others

Should some additional parameters be specified for IPv6? Namely flow label and
the absence of extension header.