Re: Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-grand-06: (with COMMENT)

Jen Linkova <> Thu, 01 July 2021 12:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 172D53A0A9F; Thu, 1 Jul 2021 05:08:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.848
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6y-ZNaUtOGtg; Thu, 1 Jul 2021 05:08:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7825C3A0A92; Thu, 1 Jul 2021 05:08:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id w13so8162990edc.0; Thu, 01 Jul 2021 05:08:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xpSOOgI3yJUhilzAulw0nNSNTrwRgorIPvoBE/4YqT8=; b=I2+sYTvK88avEcgWVk5Xe+XXkaTICO+0bD7ZtMXxMbqOPe6NW+mQbXgzj7vQZblIq8 JJpm4puloekqqzOBFNSXEfmh4xwzAjF9wrbPaPWk4F63tygKqwt9ntlZtc+0w1SBeQCe I7d3Oq8Z8VkKriWXa3SXrzd0xDvPFnamxxAf8xMIt9Yvko7wLTN1pq4IlF4rEoRVoP8j h7ebJOjp8V6UwVwZmVvL3GTn/g4/xOFY36ODtaWfKf6vHI2hLq16LUbjBEXWhi38Mpqz cXRmZfixmxmklUuVbtRHBfTCmCyAPCPcF6m0xnlcOguvTLHuwKB0UG6VG5Srd9TkUdt0 Lo8Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xpSOOgI3yJUhilzAulw0nNSNTrwRgorIPvoBE/4YqT8=; b=H83CgWPaIhj/TxIwPzrO2wG6DDGbHR9DH7otB5SCjdLvHzRVdJXLGuOXlyr062W/gp gqkEqyGm+IzfwBTueVbXsAKrSUeS7XE2RxhoY1imzcP/sDd85Xnh8D6vVnB9hvYZCNN8 undgcPC05B/saynlGtJzwyc2aEGxesStup19noD/iGOuYQ/rh9sQ5KuOQNC5d1NW5R21 +061hYWvMYJ9Gp+pc9Av/NNT0rmtajsifCiM+9gy5H9aRwo+5W8qJuIXGtEuSSY1WRFH WZkjUIB1qOVMr6FVNqfbhh+tXC/0gW1x9B4LmcxrkQKynGaPVrHq+QT3UKV/UNA2qU0A F5qw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530jKf6IUbIEmcHYCv7+VA2S3xqCe7qtJ6JK1ST/girQX5O6zu2Q mRVe88JMX6d4uE419eNzMxzmXeWEQU+ZMjrltco=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxRPtCk18N5AoAlNyo9GTuyTQhFJuGCyaeMWmyeGKpXX5JdeaTOSOXjKnJO6ISCGF8bhSAgAE3+9kwPSbCxNWg=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:3181:: with SMTP id di1mr3596283edb.211.1625141329461; Thu, 01 Jul 2021 05:08:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Jen Linkova <>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2021 22:08:36 +1000
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-grand-06: (with COMMENT)
To: Robert Wilton <>
Cc: The IESG <>, Bob Hinden <>,, 6man <>, 6man Chairs <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2021 12:08:56 -0000

Hi Robert,

On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 6:25 PM Robert Wilton via Datatracker
<> wrote:
> (1) I wasn't really familiar with the term "off-link" and I was wondering
> whether it's definition should be imported here, although I note that ND does
> define and use this term, so readers familiar with the ND RFC would presumably
> be familiar with it.

Yes,  the idea of off-link and on-link addresses/communication is kind
of fundamental for ND.
I'll add the following text to the Terminology section:
"On-link address: an address that is assigned to an interface on a
specified link. See Section 2.1 of [RFC4861] for detailed definition.
Off-link: the opposite of "on-link". See Section 2.1 of [RFC4861] for
detailed definition."

Would it make it better?

> (2) I actually found the normative text updating RFC4861 in section 6.1.1 to
> not be that readable, and I had to scan it a couple of times to spot the
> distinction between router and host.  Possibly laying out the text slightly
> differently would make the distinction between host and router behaviour more
> obvious.  E.g.,
>    When a valid Neighbor Advertisement is received (either solicited or
>    unsolicited), the Neighbor Cache is searched for the target's entry.
>    If no entry exists:
>        Hosts SHOULD silently discard the advertisement.  There is no
>        need to create an entry if none exists, since the recipient has
>        apparently not initiated any communication with the target.
>        Routers SHOULD create a new entry for the target address with
>        the link-layer address set to the Target link-layer address
>        option (if supplied).  The entry's reachability state MUST be
>        set to STALE.  If the received Neighbor Advertisement does not
>        contain the Target link-layer address option the advertisement
>        SHOULD be silently discarded.

Done, -07 will have the updated text, thanks for the suggestion!

SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry