TSVDIR LC review: <draft-ietf-6man-resilient-rs-04.txt> (Packet loss resiliency for Router Solicitations) to Proposed Standard

Allison Mankin <allison.mankin@gmail.com> Mon, 16 February 2015 22:39 UTC

Return-Path: <allison.mankin@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 684741A88BD; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:39:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 Ojjwgf0QF5zE; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:39:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qa0-x22b.google.com (mail-qa0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::22b]) (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 3EB3F1A88B2; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:39:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id bm13so23988147qab.2; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:39:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=GWtc5ERWHCOgZiD5vbSVDblZTT1d5lVtFCqzEPZyiBk=; b=rEsq9QJaMKA2jOKoq1+RpLi/lNO/u2IdaD2hKIkyYiHqrNh3k0xbut6GATPP2WhTEU 1ii9iuQZxzJi7yo2c3Mxi27y8mbZ/DZs4Vodc1OhHMuSLzHO77qXSedKeLR4Zk3spDPA RgQRkCAMwysmJjQ1somdQvx9kc5Wy2Eqrdu2SUmYkv1ci4HOcwl6yivsquMkp+31ASwB ED77f3BLy8OP5dY0Bk49kZTu0FBYg8hBZ73ddaA5sKds0f7nrmKj6TQ54eNrWI0fxi3o AGSxISATgrAXJ+7TM5qFsO+JCcUgm2TJQGLoXlgD34YUACoaoyIo6YdZ4KLAoofHRTtK QV0A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.148.20 with SMTP id 20mr674947qhu.67.1424126381480; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:39:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.96.54.6 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:39:41 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 17:39:41 -0500
Message-ID: <CAP8yD=tNQS5eiRaL9L3DHpD4DEPJMM26i696JhZMnf0KJ=CtdQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: TSVDIR LC review: <draft-ietf-6man-resilient-rs-04.txt> (Packet loss resiliency for Router Solicitations) to Proposed Standard
From: Allison Mankin <allison.mankin@gmail.com>
To: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113bb4cc1560a6050f3c43bb
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/LeKWxEPv3RSHPOjCtm8NGdKydo8>
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org, Transport Directorate <tsv-dir@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 22:39:44 -0000

I am the assigned TSV Directorate reviewer for this draft.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you
may receive.

Document:  draft-ietf-6man-resilient-rs-04.txt
Reviewer: Allison Mankin
Review Date: 2015-02-16
IETF LC End Date: 2015-02-16
IESG Telechat date: N/A.

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a standards track RFC.

This draft deals with the problem that packet loss of Router Solicitations
(RS)  can lead to an extended period of being disconnected from the
Internet.  The circumstances are well described and the solution specified
is sound from a transport point of view, and also it has a track record.
The draft directs hosts to use the retransmission algorithm from RFC 3315,
the DHCPv6 specification, which includes backoffs and a randomization
factor.  The draft specifies using this algorithm with no maximum
retransmission count (MRC) or maximum retransmission duration (MRD) and
shows that if there is an extended cause for a router to not reply, there
will be roughly one RS per hour from each host.

Major issues:
None found

Minor issues:
The Maximum Retransmission Time (MRT) is set to a value of 3600 seconds
instead of a smaller value from RFC 3315.  The rationale is cited
normatively from an individual internet-draft from 2012 but the correct
reference (and the one that may be cited normatively) is RFC 7083.  I find
that the datatracker is missing a replaced-by that would have led from the
2012 individual i-d through the WG i-d to the RFC.

On 2 February 2015 at 10:32, The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> wrote:

>
> The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Maintenance WG (6man) to
> consider the following document:
> - 'Packet loss resiliency for Router Solicitations'
>   <draft-ietf-6man-resilient-rs-04.txt> as Proposed Standard
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-02-16. Exceptionally, comments may be
> sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
> Abstract
>
>
>    When an interface on a host is initialized, the host transmits Router
>    Solicitations in order to minimize the amount of time it needs to
>    wait until the next unsolicited multicast Router Advertisement is
>    received.  In certain scenarios, these router solicitations
>    transmitted by the host might be lost.  This document specifies a
>    mechanism for hosts to cope with the loss of the initial Router
>    Solicitations.  Furthermore, on some links, unsolicited multicast
>    Router Advertisements are never sent and the mechanism in this
>    document is intended to work even in such scenarios.
>
>
>
>
> The file can be obtained via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-resilient-rs/
>
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-resilient-rs/ballot/
>
>
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>
>
>