RE: FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-6man-unrecognized-opt-02.txt

[Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>]

Hi Fernando,

Thanks for the review. Comments inline....

                            Ron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2018 5:50 AM
> To: Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>; 6man <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-6man-
> unrecognized-opt-02.txt
> 
> Hello, Ron,
> 
> Overall, I support the proposal.
> 
> Some quick comments:
> 
> * I'd change the name of the option. Text such as
> 
>  "because the Unrecognized
>   option elicits the same behavior from all nodes, regardless of
>   whether they recognize the option."
> 
> while understandable, sounds akward.
> 

I am also starting to dislike the name. Can you think of a better one?

Since we use the option to probe paths, maybe we should call it the "Probe" option?

                                                          Ron

> * Section 3:
> Do you need the option not be variable length?
> 
> 
> * Meta:
> Based on RFC7872, it is clear that EH size has an impact on the probability of
> the packet being dropped. So you might want to add this parameter to the
> "probe protocol". In essense, it would end up something like PMTUD, but for
> options. PMOS (Path Maximum Option Size? :-) )
> 
> 

As you state above, we might want to use this option to determine how large a DO a path can convey. So, we should probably:

- leave the Option data as variable length
- add some text to the draft explaining why we did this

> * Section 5, security considerations:
> I'd include some work of the security implications of EHs 8e.g., possible
> performance impact).
> 

Because nodes that recognize this options behave identically to nodes that don't recognize it. There is no new behavior. When there isn't any new behavior, can there be any security considerations?

If you can think of one, I would be happy to document it.

                                                   Ron

> Thanks!
> 
> Cheers,
> Fernando
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 07/22/2018 09:54 PM, Ron Bonica wrote:
> > Please review...
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2018 3:49 PM
> > To: Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>; John Leddy
> > <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: New Version Notification for
> > draft-bonica-6man-unrecognized-opt-02.txt
> >
> >
> > A new version of I-D, draft-bonica-6man-unrecognized-opt-02.txt
> > has been successfully submitted by Ron Bonica and posted to the IETF
> repository.
> >
> > Name:		draft-bonica-6man-unrecognized-opt
> > Revision:	02
> > Title:		The IPv6 Unrecognized Option
> > Document date:	2018-07-22
> > Group:		Individual Submission
> > Pages:		7
> > URL:            https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dbonica-2D6man-2Dunrecognized-2Dopt-
> 2D02&d=DwICaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-
> ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=Fch9FQ82sir-BoLx84hKuKwl-
> AWF2EfpHcAwrDThKP8&m=G-
> 03L8TpSQ0UWt_a_2MmZWksOitAeQhBH06vNXS-
> xFY&s=zYDxhhlOQF6rLi5WzpM5KC7gKX4v4RqznK3OUbFqVDY&e=
> >
> >
> > Abstract:
> >    This document describes a method by which a source node can
> determine
> >    whether the underlying network can a) convey a packet that contains
> >    IPv6 destination options from itself to a destination node, and b)
> >    convey an ICMPv6 Parameter Problem message in the reverse direction.
> >
> >    In order to support this method, this document defines a new IPv6
> >    option, called the Unrecognized option.  Implementation of the
> >    Unrecognized option is a trivial exercise, because the Unrecognized
> >    option elicits the same behavior from all nodes, regardless of
> >    whether they recognize the option.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> >
> > The IETF Secretariat
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > Administrative Requests:
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.ietf.org_mail
> > man_listinfo_ipv6&d=DwICaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-
> ndb3voDTXcWzo
> > CI&r=Fch9FQ82sir-BoLx84hKuKwl-AWF2EfpHcAwrDThKP8&m=G-
> 03L8TpSQ0UWt_a_2M
> > mZWksOitAeQhBH06vNXS-
> xFY&s=WAkiKPb2X5Yb_dOCgi3GHMuA2mlbygkfX3HmOWCUWhs
> > &e=
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Fernando Gont
> e-mail: [e-mail] || [e-mail] PGP Fingerprint:
> 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1
> 
>