Subject: [Roll] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-29: (with COMMENT)

From: Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 05:14:43 -0700

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-29: 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-roll-useofrplinfo/

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

* Section 3.1

This text following the RFC8200 quote is not supported or implied by the quote

"This means that while it should be avoided, the impact on the Internet of
leaking a Hop-by-Hop header is acceptable."

Is this text necessary?

* Section 3.2

It is not clear if nodes are required to change option types when the config
flag transitions from 0 to 1 (e.g. after the reboot mentioned). Can you please
clarify?

* Section 6

In the cases where a hop-by-hop options header needs to be added (denoted by
"hop" in the table), I am assuming that the destination address is copied from
the inner packet into the encapsulating packet. If this is right, I think it
might be useful to explicitly mention it as the dst field of the table does not
provide the required information.