Subject: [ippm] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-09: (with COMMENT)

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:30:12 -0700

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-09: 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-6man-pdm-option/

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

No objection to the publication of this document, but it's important to
get Warren's COMMENT addressed:
This document defines a new IPv6 Destination Option. Adding this to a
packet pushes the L4 information further out, potentially making it
unavailable to the forwarding engine / ACLs. This is not just a
theoretical issue - see RFC7872 for real world examples. This means that
if I connect to a remote machine and enable this, I may lock myself out
of the machine (return packets may not make it back to me); this should
be noted (perhaps by expanding on section 1.6).