[Gen-art] Re:Gen-Art LC Review: draft-ietf-ipv6-ra-flags-option-01.txt

Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Mon, 20 August 2007 17:33 UTC

Return-path: <gen-art-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1INB7d-00082d-IZ; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:33:01 -0400
Received: from gen-art by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1INAPL-0007dB-TV for gen-art-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:47:15 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1INAPL-0007d3-Iu for gen-art@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:47:15 -0400
Received: from piper.jhuapl.edu ([128.244.26.33] helo=jhuapl.edu) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1INAPL-000568-3J for gen-art@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:47:15 -0400
Received: from ([128.244.206.192]) by piper.jhuapl.edu with ESMTP id 5502121.39177507; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:46:56 -0400
Message-ID: <46C9C583.8050202@innovationslab.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:46:59 -0400
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <joel@stevecrocker.com>
References: <E3F9D87C63E2774390FE67C924EC99BB1B90FACC@zrc2hxm1.corp.nortel.com> <E1IMuM5-0005Xj-TT@elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <E1IMuM5-0005Xj-TT@elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0ddefe323dd869ab027dbfff7eff0465
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:33:00 -0400
Cc: Robert Hinden <bob.hinden@nokia.com>, gen-art@ietf.org, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Subject: [Gen-art] Re:Gen-Art LC Review: draft-ietf-ipv6-ra-flags-option-01.txt
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: gen-art-bounces@ietf.org

Hi Joel,
      Thanks for the review.  I see no problem with making the suggested 
change on length handling to clarify behavior.

Regards,
Brian


Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
> reviewer for this draft
>     IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option
> (for background on Gen-ART, please 
> seehttp://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
> 
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> you may receive.
> 
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-ipv6-ra-flags-option-01.txt
> Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
> Review Date:  19-August-2007
> IETF LC End Date: 2007-08-31
> IESG Telechat date: (if known) 2007-09-06
> 
> Summary:
> This document is ready for publication as a proposed standard.
> I would change the length handling text a bit if I were writing it, so I 
> have included that suggestion as part of my comments.
> There is a good chance that in this particular case all of my comments 
> below are too picky, but they are provided for the information of the 
> general area chair.
> 
> Comments:
> As a general observation, it is usually a bad idea for chairs to be 
> authors of documents in their working group.  If we really don't have 
> enough active participants in the IPv6 working group to get someone else 
> to write this, we have a much larger problem.
> 
> The document says that the length of the option is 1.  This is in 
> multiples of 8 octets, so there is lots of room.
> However, the text explicitly says that the length should be checked in 
> case of future expansion.  But it does not specify what to do if the 
> length is not 1.
> I would recommend that the text explicitly allow for lengths greater 
> than 1, and simply indicate that bits past those understood by the 
> receiver are too be ignored.  There could probably also be a sentence 
> indicating that since bits are to be defined in order, this allows a 
> receiver to properly recognize the bits it understands.
> 


_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art