[apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-implementation-04

Yoshiro YONEYA <yoshiro.yoneya@jprs.co.jp> Thu, 14 June 2012 08:27 UTC

Return-Path: <yoshiro.yoneya@jprs.co.jp>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4169721F8599; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 01:27:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2eDhXYfch16i; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 01:27:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from off-send01.tyo.jprs.co.jp (off-send01.tyo.jprs.co.jp [IPv6:2001:df0:8:17::10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8404621F85A3; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 01:27:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from off-sendsmg01.tyo.jprs.co.jp (off-sendsmg01.tyo.jprs.co.jp [172.18.8.32]) by off-send01.tyo.jprs.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q5E8RJP8003383; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 17:27:21 +0900
X-AuditID: ac120820-b7f406d0000013f6-b3-4fd9a0679e8d
Received: from NOTE550 (off-cpu04.tyo.jprs.co.jp [172.18.4.14]) by off-sendsmg01.tyo.jprs.co.jp (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 67.76.05110.760A9DF4; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 17:27:19 +0900 (JST)
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 17:27:16 +0900
From: Yoshiro YONEYA <yoshiro.yoneya@jprs.co.jp>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org, draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-implementation.all@tools.ietf.org
Message-Id: <20120614172716.f5ce6631.yoshiro.yoneya@jprs.co.jp>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.1.4 (GTK+ 2.10.14; i686-pc-mingw32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrNIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsWyRoiFTzd9wU1/gy/z+SxWv1zBZvG5fSWj xYw/E5ktuto2sziweCxZ8pPJ4+/9d6weXy5/ZgtgjuKySUnNySxLLdK3S+DK2P50OkvBEY6K 2Y9bWRsY37F1MXJySAiYSBzdN58FwhaTuHBvPVCci0NI4DijxK1NM8ASLAKqEifvtILZbAIG Er+W/WYCsUUEIiRe/b3JCGIzCwhKNL1/BVYjLOAm8fjQPFYQm1fAXuL6umfMEAssJJ6ePwHU ywEUF5T4u0MYolVL4uGvWywQtrzE9rdzmCcw8s5CqJqFpGoWkqoFjMyrGGXy09J0i1PzUopz 0w0M9Uoq8/WyCoqK9ZJB9CZGcNhxKOxgnHHK4BCjAAejEg+v7Lkb/kKsiWXFlbmHGCU5mJRE ebvn3vQX4kvKT6nMSCzOiC8qzUktPsQowcGsJMJrPB8ox5uSWFmVWpQPk5LmYFES5z1+doef kEB6YklqdmpqQWoRTFaGg0NJgjcXpFGwKDU9tSItM6cEIc3EwQkynAdoeArY8OKCxNzizHSI /ClGSSlx3laQhABIIqM0D673FaM40AvCvEkgWR5gCoHregU0kAlooObZGyADSxIRUlINjHGP XQVPS4tPCfm75/HunAzfEBnL75IHTh+/kahp62l9ZGWJZ20v+4/Gv0LvdSxvKXMJtC5SnXbn /odnheJJh7QrBQIfZf1fZdFU5W15me2m/wY11/2lv98s+Hn43M+jVfVlj1sqf/wxYfo2v/Kw Fl+J6rQ5jqaRrKuYGPw67kxeaV7Oc57hjBJLcUaioRZzUXEiAMZy+rXeAgAA
Cc: iesg@ietf.org
Subject: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-implementation-04
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:27:26 -0000

I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for
this draft (for background on appsdir, please see
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.  Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-implementation-04
Title: Implementation Advice for IPv6 Router Advertisement Guard (RA-Guard)
Reviewer: Yoshiro Yoneya
Review Date: 2012-06-14
IETF Last Call Date: 2012-05-29
IESG Telechat Date: unknown

Summary:

This draft is ready for publication as a BCP RFC.

Major Issues:
  none

Minor Issues:
  none

Nits:

- Section 2.2 [Page 6]
  "A layer-2 device could, however, at least detect that that an
   ICMPv6 message (or some type) is being sent,"
   -> "A layer-2 device could, however, at least detect that an
       ICMPv6 message (or some type) is being sent"

Regards,

-- 
Yoshiro YONEYA <yoshiro.yoneya@jprs.co.jp>