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

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Tue, 17 February 2015 10:28 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 ECF7D1A86EA; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 02:28:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.011
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 BfDk4ctoTTpe; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 02:28:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from banjo.employees.org (banjo.employees.org [IPv6:2001:1868:205::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3F511A1A94; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 02:28:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from banjo.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by banjo.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBD476280; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 02:28:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id :references:to; s=selector1; bh=yIFrr/MEs0mUv/G2EVhlC8eSRQU=; b= oN4EHCbS+7e2xWTwTRjH3Qg/0nkOG6H3ddrxh4y0soU5FuL6r2AesFcm+QP3dz9L ZLbXtHnncq7hg1JFNE++o5tE1f0/pNLgquHWBGaWtLN+K54fTQoI2flEfOyB6SSE WYuqKgRchwzeRPIEWM6gTtCZRv/JBYzdsD0bdpv2//s=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id :references:to; q=dns; s=selector1; b=K9I44Pzp48V0iQL6g2ilEFMZtZ rslmBQEjMhpkHxEus9+4cp0NMifjTEtFt0tqne4t2nhW5G5io5NWbVRA7a5dO3MX 8E3Y3Z8wrJVbP1uCV8e50W6lpVmEQLfdUmHHGYISW7XmhwjEjQABIpwJ0aGxwxpe em7clRn9Gh4EZZsto=
Received: from gomlefisk.localdomain (173-38-208-169.cisco.com [173.38.208.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by banjo.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 401AD627B; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 02:28:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by gomlefisk.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8DBD3EDF4ED; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:28:26 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: TSVDIR LC review: <draft-ietf-6man-resilient-rs-04.txt> (Packet loss resiliency for Router Solicitations) to Proposed Standard
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D08A2F57-6AC6-4B82-A3BA-853B16DB283E"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b5
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAP8yD=tNQS5eiRaL9L3DHpD4DEPJMM26i696JhZMnf0KJ=CtdQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:28:26 +0100
Message-Id: <6822664E-4D61-4E0D-A258-BBAD1BA3C4C8@employees.org>
References: <CAP8yD=tNQS5eiRaL9L3DHpD4DEPJMM26i696JhZMnf0KJ=CtdQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Allison Mankin <allison.mankin@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Z9njNKiBAL9SPyPUMzZKyMNn5Rc>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 07:47:52 -0800
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@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: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 10:28:33 -0000

Allison,

thank you very much for the review!

cheers,
Ole
(Document Shepherd)


> On 16 Feb 2015, at 23:39 , Allison Mankin <allison.mankin@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------