Ballot for draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 14 and is now closed.
I agree with Stephen that section 6.3 ought to mention RFC7739. If there's a reduction in the chance of a DoS from the previous method, I agree with Stephen that it should be mentioned.
- Please spell out DR at its first occurrence - Not sure I understand what the intention of the following section is: "6.4. Host Built-in mB4 Function If the mB4 function is implemented in the host which is directly connected to an IPv6-only network, the host MUST implement the behaviors specified in Sections 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3. The host MAY optimize the implementation to provide an Application Programming Interface (API) or kernel module to skip the IGMP-MLD Interworking Function. Optimization considerations are out of scope of this specification." Why is this mentioned? Does that has to be normative?
- IPR: so we have a late IPR declaration that sys RAND+royalty but yet the filing refers to the I-D that preceded the application and there's a common author/inventor. Sheesh. But the WG did consider it and were ok going ahead from a look at the list. (So there's no need to reply to my whining here:-) - 6.3: Is RFC7739 worth a mention here? Not sure myself. - section 9: I'd have thought that this solution reduced the potential for a DoS compared to the previous situation where multicast traffic is mapped to unicast? If so, worth a mention?