Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-06
Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Fri, 05 May 2017 08:31 UTC
Return-Path: <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ED83129401; Fri, 5 May 2017 01:31:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 neTnMR-Qh75F; Fri, 5 May 2017 01:31:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-x242.google.com (mail-wr0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E1D0129447; Fri, 5 May 2017 01:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-x242.google.com with SMTP id g12so3651196wrg.2; Fri, 05 May 2017 01:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=ELmhcFUdD2F50vBVI4sLPKUyBZF1rumlccSeD9oTOgE=; b=sRYoO+wqfFcFuaCtdTRL6AUZ81X6uFSnyJDTfyRXDRhFvZz0lyeMuCeM28gf/d1onp fo10qARwXCDhcJAZBcT8Yt4gl7cGIpxXpuLAevt0jWqbFqOuasehUBNYFaLq8N0MSXh7 o7owxd5tY1Lj0HAwi31v04ZPBh5jM3jnuin3XqBnukEm6q27+9BFK36/mZ6sOxLCzKia g05wsgYO4A7X0n3BVjjY1SA8LZKbmPVIqw1AaAUYlfxOxZKGrxnwNRQIXG5wjxbOZpVP gj5Ui5aZP1GUynjrzaKPe0Z7IWoMTUCYMQ59FIvuQlvBlzgXWizFbPzIdU4PDJRqN8hJ q2MQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=ELmhcFUdD2F50vBVI4sLPKUyBZF1rumlccSeD9oTOgE=; b=MIDRh5gY5e21tZvLYgStedD8Rskgd6EDgmxoYQ/8nerbdYa3bEGzcl5cmZTg1b+Dz4 rrw0LsGRWkHJrKqgUHgv+i/fI5IRZZ44htmaCkNHzS6DrLXkqmh4LQrQpyn/pJqT1xsL z61wyKUefRuTRwoowvR5wVjWEVTitUrKJiJdAaDOVJ/E9xvoZnBcmbJJ7BXPlngTpU9k I/n1L2SNEg/gA2QJRVvry6YVHD/qKnEyDxj5S60UA+44aGvGgytCHwaenC7C387149pv P5st3aFGAOPs3NHnds+hR20aZyB7i6OOdGUD84tyFUiKVWYku+yUR2gKrBF4Qs2S1p4g NmtA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/6+0mU2vp+A9gUPRaaXGzps9LuMCc3PP+gVDfxgT+fAogpdGwsP 5UiBna0JCqmVlw==
X-Received: by 10.223.136.131 with SMTP id f3mr32540527wrf.70.1493973072988; Fri, 05 May 2017 01:31:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.33] ([77.125.68.206]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t124sm1165589wma.10.2017.05.05.01.31.10 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 05 May 2017 01:31:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <7CFCE1D1-CBBA-4B1A-AC4D-587D1ED8464B@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6E34E0DB-172F-4225-8403-B5869E2075C8"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Subject: Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-06
Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 11:31:08 +0300
In-Reply-To: <149283456181.25913.15133934620501134310@ietfa.amsl.com>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, rtg-dir@ietf.org, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis.all@ietf.org
To: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
References: <149283456181.25913.15133934620501134310@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-hrDOsHa01rGjJKOAuTudGVbW7k>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 08:31:17 -0000
Ines, Thanks for the review. Comments below. Bob > On Apr 22, 2017, at 7:16 AM, Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com> wrote: > > Reviewer: Ines Robles > Review result: Has Nits > > Document: draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-06.txt > > Reviewer: Ines Robles > > Review Date: April 21, 2017 > > Intended status: Standards Track > > > Summary: > > This document describes Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6 > > I believe the draft is technically good. I have no “Major” issues > with this I-D. I have some minor comments. > Good, thanks. > > Comments: > > 1- I think that it would be nice to add a graphical example that > describes the process of the Path MTU Discovery (including a Packet > Too Big Message). e.g. Figure 1 of RFC 5927[1]. I will consider it, but sure what it would look like. Suggestions? > > 2- Section 1: > > 2.1- I would add a reference when you mention black hole connection. > What about section 2.1 of [2] or [3]? > I will add RFC2923. The other is an expired draft that I don’t think it appropriate to reference. > 3- Section 2: > > 3.1- EMTU_S => When it is defined, it references RFC6691. But this > term is not mentioned in RFC6691. I would add additionally a reference > to RFC 1122 [4] which defines EMTU_S. > OK > 3.2- I would add also the same references for EMTU_R. OK > > 4.Section 3: > > 4.1- In the first paragraph, I would add a reference to ICMPv6 the > first time that ICMPv6 Packet Too Big message is mentioned. And I > would add here also "(ICMPv6 PTB)" since it used further in the > document. There is a reference to ICMPv6 the first time it shows up in Section 1. I don’t think another is needed for ICMPv6 PTB. > > 4.2- In the first paragraph: "...to send smaller fragments or ..." > --> I think it would be clearer "to send smaller packets or…" I agree, “packets” is better here. It’s consistent with the definition in Section 2. > > 4.3- Second Paragraph: "...process ends when the node's estimate..." > -> "...process ends when the source node's estimate…"? OK > > 4.4- Last Paragraph: "can to appear" -> "can appear" . "...but is in > fact..." -> "...but it is in fact…" OK > > 5. Section 4: > > 4.1- about this: "The node MUST reduce the size of the packets it is > sending along the path". I would add an explanation to which size the > packet should be reduced (maybe based in an initial example) This is described in the previous paragraph. > > > 6.Section 5: > > 6.1- I would add a reference to RFC 1122 [4] when MMS_S is mentioned. OK > > > 6.2- Section 5.5: "Some transport protocols are not allowed to > repacketize when doing a retransmission..." I would add some > examples. I will look into that. > > 7. Section 6: > > 7.1- What about to mention Blind Performance-Degrading Attack [5]? This is protected against by not allow the MTU to be set below 1280 and changes in rfc2460bis fragmentation. > > >> > [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5927#section-7.3 > [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2923 > [3] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jacquin-opsawg-icmp-blackhole-problem-00 > [4] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1122#page-58 > [5] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5927#section-7