[Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-06

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Mon, 24 April 2017 17:12 UTC

Return-Path: <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietf.org
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2468B13189E; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 10:12:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
To: <gen-art@ietf.org>
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis.all@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.50.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <149305392811.25808.15115824976388262628@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 10:12:08 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/qC6H14_XREOPQbsikbOHZspQYS0>
Subject: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-06
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 17:12:08 -0000

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


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

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
   local representation of a path may remain constant, the actual
   path(s) in use may change.  Thus, PMTU information cached by a
   can become stale.

   If the stale PMTU value is too large, this will be discovered
   immediately once a large enough packet is sent on the path.  No
   mechanism exists for realizing that a stale PMTU value is too
   so an implementation should "age" cached values.  When a PMTU
   has not been decreased for a while (on the order of 10 minutes),
   PMTU estimate should be set to the MTU of the first-hop link, and
   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> 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> 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.

Nits/editorial comments:  None.