Reviewer: Adam Montville Review result: Ready Address Protected Neighbor Discovery for Low-power and Lossy Networks, which guards against address theft, is almost ready for publication. There are two points that may warrant attention by the ADs: 1. In the first exchange with a 6LR: "When a 6LR receives a NS(EARO) registration with a new Crypto-ID as a ROVR, it SHOULD challenge by responding with a NA(EARO) with a status of "Validation Requested"". Under what circumstances would a challenge not be warranted? In other words, could this SHOULD be a MUST? 2. The following sentence in 7.1 reads, "The 6LR must protect itself against overflows and reject excessive registration with a status 2 "Neighbor Cache Full"". Does that need to be a MUST instead of a must? -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
