Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-06
Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Wed, 10 May 2017 23:43 UTC
Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6703128DE7; Wed, 10 May 2017 16:43:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.72
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=MZVgqjNQ; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=NKQYc46H
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kFX9zgZ15PmW; Wed, 10 May 2017 16:43:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3B151287A7; Wed, 10 May 2017 16:43:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2033E20A69; Wed, 10 May 2017 19:43:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 10 May 2017 19:43:34 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=vwtz/PxWfo+Dzy4l2P lLtNSBYWEsONSo+1tatYZL9nY=; b=MZVgqjNQppF2cKrOjF7oU0YeXIzjZyICfB pAOSUy6WzeXdcgwZtpMKklCy1cM9Do8eaC40xEW2RFANxh48wLvVjj7Z67opGNjG 8pIN3aW4TtwUiMhoF22vWILJzR2OOIOwkfu2rsNHyfLNxEjgzJiGWxcT0BBfqXsn p8CgjIA9pxSRee8bKxCIJQlmJlRSLd9MHpidHYE5S6/qRV+kx89SPqBsyd/ZC4M6 Bad9sNklen9O04Ut7ajMAi0TI5bl2cp0/6lZ/vp8K/TJU6QV+/XDBypUHqDtJreO OL4jH4HZvaEBpeiAePMEPmmoFl08t7wKadEMlJSaF7cMJ+y8z+2A==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; bh=vwtz/PxWfo+Dzy4l2PlLtNSBYWEsONSo+1tatYZL9nY=; b=NKQYc46H C98/d4mabv3rj0UT/TbEJEBun3j0EsJBlDTTxdHZ+f3/58IqGhkTtQVbMddhbnKU tKuDLNagfv1hhPEK1rYTKoAI7iaeBoqIhj0o97FoX8DYiDtCvh+6Uh6qRl7bbUJ6 YF08pT5VdsjPCcuWZ+fq1yCznA9IR1hWeew59XLAcEKF3X98xi2Zq83JkWQyZDJ8 01NHCeqqRnEwZQ/IY1F5Op44DK3/zeVlGosMkiiiaWSvi91jt5XqOMGfbnCubxUk 1EbTv+4/NeZmAr6OxNXChajxANgMwSN/o/NKkPz4Hl+OBJYxwbSkv4iuDF6ClBIn 4XVQHiZ2/6UXdw==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:pqUTWZBJdNfJ0XiAPfsA55IkOF494tYb1ENcCm_RyQiLUjP68q-rpg>
X-Sasl-enc: 4hsy43jgEiyEuvImk6Wa7GQAlLdPIEnvQ4LnEPnf6qjk 1494459813
Received: from [172.27.5.25] (unknown [75.104.68.118]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id DCE18240A5; Wed, 10 May 2017 19:43:29 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <149305392811.25808.15115824976388262628@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 16:43:21 -0700
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis.all@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AA2BAC68-1F22-453C-9AC3-C519E21D6F60@cooperw.in>
References: <149305392811.25808.15115824976388262628@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/9tAZGSuIYgPdA7dhMBBo3T4xmXk>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-06
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 23:43:37 -0000
Stewart, thank you for your review, and thanks all for your engagement with Stewart. Alvaro has proposed a resolution to the 2119 issue which seems satisfactory. I have ballotted no-objection. Alissa > On Apr 24, 2017, at 10:12 AM, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> wrote: > > Reviewer: Stewart Bryant > Review result: Ready with Issues > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your > document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-?? > Reviewer: Stewart Bryant > Review Date: 2017-04-24 > IETF LC End Date: 2017-03-01 > IESG Telechat date: 2017-05-11 > > Summary: This is can be published as is, but I think could be > improved. > > I thank the authors you for dealing with most of my comments in the > previous round. > There are two unaddressed points that the IETF Chair may wish to > consider, and one > that I missed. > > Major issues: > The text has a lot of RFC2119 language, but no RFC2119 declaration. > and the document seems inconsistent about when it uses RFC2119 > language and > when it does not. This sends a mixed messages to authors if we are not > > consistent on this point throughout the RFC Series. > > ======= > > 5.3. Purging stale PMTU information > > Internetwork topology is dynamic; routes change over time. While > the > local representation of a path may remain constant, the actual > path(s) in use may change. Thus, PMTU information cached by a > node > can become stale. > > If the stale PMTU value is too large, this will be discovered > almost > immediately once a large enough packet is sent on the path. No > such > mechanism exists for realizing that a stale PMTU value is too > small, > so an implementation should "age" cached values. When a PMTU > value > has not been decreased for a while (on the order of 10 minutes), > the > PMTU estimate should be set to the MTU of the first-hop link, and > the > packetization layers should be notified of the change. This will > cause the complete Path MTU Discovery process to take place again. > > SB> I still worry that the impact of this advice is going to be a > disruption to what might > SB> be a critical service every 10 mins, and wonder if there should be > some advice along the > SB> lines of noting the importance of service delivery as part of > deciding whether to > SB> test for bigger PMTU vs improving efficiency? > > Minor issues: > > A node MUST NOT reduce its estimate of the Path MTU below the IPv6 > minimum link MTU. > > SB> I missed this last time. > SB> > SB> Presumably you mean "A node MUST NOT reduce its estimate of the > SB> Path MTU below the IPv6 minimum link MTU in response to such > SB> a message." > SB> > SB> Otherwise I would have thought that this was entirely a matter > SB> for the host whether it wanted to use a Path MTU below the IPv6 > SB> link minimum. Nothing breaks if the host takes a more conservative > > SB> decision. > SB> > > Nits/editorial comments: None. > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-iet… Stewart Bryant
- [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-6m… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-iet… Joe Touch
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-iet… Joe Touch
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-iet… Joe Touch
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-iet… Joe Touch
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-iet… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-iet… Fred Baker
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-iet… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-iet… Joe Touch
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-iet… Bob Hinden
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-iet… Joe Touch
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-iet… Alissa Cooper