[core] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-core-hop-limit-06: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-core-hop-limit-06: 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-core-hop-limit/



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

Thank you for the work put into this document. I have a couple of COMMENTs
(that I would appreciate to see a reply of yours) and one NIT.

Regards,

-éric

== DISCUSS ==

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 3 --
C.1) "Because forwarding errors may occur if inadequate Hop-Limit values
   are used, proxies at the boundaries of an administrative domain MAY
   be instructed to remove or rewrite the value of Hop-Limit carried in
   received messages" Isn't this remove all usefulness of the Hop-Limit option ?

C.2) table 1, suggest to state the value of the C, U, N, R properties

-- Section 4 --
C.3) while I understand why a proxy should not add its own diagnostic
information when packet should become larger than the MTU of the next link, I
wonder what will happen downstream when the MTU will be exceeded...

C.4) suggest to use normative language (uppercase MAY, MUST, ...)

== NITS ==

-- Section 3 --
N.1) s/if a less value/if a smaller value/ ?