Subject: [Roll] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-25: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 May 2019 04:56:50 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-25: 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I only did a quick read of this document but I would like to echo the TSV-ART
review (Thanks Colin!) that a pointer to RFC6040 could be good in order to
highlight support of ECN for any tunnelling solutions. Also there is
draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels which could be a good pointer/read for this spec.

---

From: Ines Robles <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 12:06:49 +0300

Hi Mirja,

Thank you for your review. We have added in the new version this new text
as answer to your comment.

" Since some of the uses cases here described, use IPv6-in-IPv6
encapsulation. It MUST take in consideration, when encapsulation is
applied, the RFC6040 [RFC6040], which defines how the explicit congestion
notification (ECN) field of the IP header should be constructed on entry to
and exit from any IPV6-in-IPV6 tunnel. Additionally, it is recommended the
reading of [I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels]."

Best regards,

the authors.

---

From: Mirja Kuehlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 09:08:20 +0000

Great! Thanks!

> On 17. May 2019, at 09:06, Ines Robles <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Mirja,
> 
> Thank you for your review. We have added in the new version this new text as answer to your comment.
> 
> " Since some of the uses cases here described, use IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation. It MUST take in consideration, when encapsulation is applied, the RFC6040 [RFC6040], which defines how the explicit congestion notification (ECN) field of the IP header should be  constructed on entry to and exit from any IPV6-in-IPV6 tunnel. Additionally, it is recommended the reading of [I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels]."
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> the authors.
> 
> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 2:56 PM Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote: