[dna] Comments on draft-ietf-dna-tentative-04
Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com> Thu, 10 December 2009 15:44 UTC
Return-Path: <erik.nordmark@sun.com>
X-Original-To: dna@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dna@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BE3F3A6A81 for <dna@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:44:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.99
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.99 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.056, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qvphzcyieK2b for <dna@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:44:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from brmea-mail-2.sun.com (brmea-mail-2.Sun.COM [192.18.98.43]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55FB13A6A82 for <dna@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:44:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jurassic-x4600.sfbay.sun.com ([129.146.17.59]) by brmea-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id nBAFho0S015236; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:43:50 GMT
Received: from [10.7.251.248] (punchin-nordmark.SFBay.Sun.COM [10.7.251.248]) by jurassic-x4600.sfbay.sun.com (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nBAFhkIa190862 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:43:48 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4B211731.2000003@sun.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:43:45 -0800
From: Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090929)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Greg Daley <gdaley@netstarnetworks.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dna@ietf.org
Subject: [dna] Comments on draft-ietf-dna-tentative-04
X-BeenThere: dna@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNA working group mailing list <dna.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dna>, <mailto:dna-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dna>
List-Post: <mailto:dna@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dna-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dna>, <mailto:dna-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:44:04 -0000
I read this document as well, and I have some editorial comments to make it more clear. FWIW I found this paragraph hard to understand: The proposed IPv6 Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) Optimization "Optimistic DAD" defines a set of recoverable procedures which allow a node to make use of an address before DAD completes. Essentially, Optimistic DAD forbids usage of certain Neighbour Discovery options which could pollute active neighbour cache entries, while an address is tentative. It reads as as if the name of this proposal/document is "Optimistic DAD", but that is a reference to RFC 4429, right? That is an RFC and not just something that is proposed. Is the intent to say: The "Optimistic DAD" protocol [RFC4429] defines a set of recoverable procedures which allow a node to make use of an address before DAD completes. Optimistic DAD forbids usage of certain Neighbour Discovery options which could pollute active neighbour cache entries, while an address is tentative. I'd suggest replacing: Length The length of the option (including the type and length fields) in units of 8 octets. With: Length 8-bit unsigned integer. The length of the option (including the type and length fields) in units of 8 octets. The value 0 is invalid. Nodes MUST silently discard an ND packet that contains an option with length zero. In section 2.2 we have The differing neighbour cache entry MUST NOT be affected by the reception of the Tentative Option. This ensures that tentative addresses are unable to modify legitimate neighbour cache entries. Thus this MUST NOT mean that a NCE can not be created? Or does "differing" imply that only the MUST NOT only talks about the case when a NCE already exists for the Source IPv6 address? The preceeding sentence already says the latter, so we don't need to repeat it with more difficult to understand wording. Nit: "unable to" in passive voice reads a bit oddly. Can we say "cannot be added" instead? Then we have For these messages, no Neighbour Cache entry may be created, although response messages may be directed to a particular unicast address. which is more words but less clarity. The document needs to explicitly say, for the case when no NCE exists for the Source IPv6 address, whether or not an NCE can be created based on the TO option. Section 4 answers that question, but I still think section 2.2 should be made more concise. Section 4.1 has this In the case that a cache entry is unable to be created or updated due to existence of a conflicting neighbour cache entry, it MUST NOT update the neighbour cache entry. which reads as a tautology; if must not be updated, in the case that it wasn't updated. I suspect there there might be a desire to say When a node receives a ND message with a TO option, and a Neighbor Cache entry already exists with a different link-layer address than what is in the TO option, then the receiver MUST NOT perform any changes to the Neighbor Cache. Basically not only must not the address be updated, but the state etc must not be updated either. Was that the intended meaning of the text? I suspect section 4.1 can be made more clear with less use of passive voice. Also, section 4.1 and 4.2 seems to have overlapping text. Should 4.1 just be about message validation, and 4.2 the processing of a received NS/RS with TO? Finally two non-editorial questions: Is an implementation allowed to use the TO option to send a reply to a NS or RS in the case that a differing NCE exists? The document doesn't talk about that and it might be a useful optimization in some cases. Is an implementation allowed to include TO in NS/RS messages that have an unspecified source address? The second question is answered in an appendix. That constraint should be made part of the main text. Erik
- [dna] Comments on draft-ietf-dna-tentative-04 Erik Nordmark