Subject: [ipwave] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-51: (with COMMENT)

From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 15:27:59 -0700

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-51: 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-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb/

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

Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS and some of the COMMENTs.

(Resolved comments removed)

(5) Section 1.  Per “The resulting stack inherits from IPv6 over Ethernet
[RFC2462], but operates over …”, what exactly is being inherited?  What does
“inherited” mean in this case?

(6) Section 4.3.  Per “Among these types of addresses only the IPv6 link-local
addresses can be formed using an EUI-64 identifier, in particular during
transition time”, the meaning of the “in particular during transition time
isn’t clear in the text.  Should it say "in particular as all clients are
upgraded to this specification?"

(9) Section 5.  What is “protected 802.11” mentioned in “Such a link is less
protected …”?

(10) Section 5.2.  SHA256 needs a reference.

(11) Editorial Nits
** Section 4.5.  Typo.  s/.A  A future/.  A future/

** Section 5.1.  Typo.  s/Futhermore/Furthermore/

** Section 5.1.  Typo.  s/pricavy/privacy/

** Section 5.2. Typo.  s/admninistered/ administered/

** Appendix H.  Duplicate word. s/section Section 2/Section 2/