IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Fri, 27 July 2018 18:47 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70037130E06 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 11:47:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.422
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.422 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.979, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 EilrLVMW51u1 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 11:47:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-f178.google.com (mail-lj1-f178.google.com [209.85.208.178]) (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 047E2124D68 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 11:47:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-f178.google.com with SMTP id j19-v6so5246675ljc.7 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 11:47:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=CxOV7edr/fhWdn1K4vcs8owMPF4Oy5tg/UYXmbfcy84=; b=P+9c6xfnuL5SV6dQvh7zPJvbgu6af9RLhZMnRjThSsTEIxYrK9vzpWpjYtamZzgZ+P MiLiWl3kHKuIOSYu/6iltM48X5J7/EiAtWSKSRaOoZGwpwDpo5ePGoNDhpBxACMO9mcu QMuMdpJseGRxMDRhnZxIqZBzssyozZZnyNZvlrrO+WtOMLqjixQoX7ssT3Zu54jn9T6M yESUlFN9TeUvSQsY1d5/daChwuy9ypaEJ/K2vWRqUcx73it+9gjyRZTUeq2eGr3gPS/m OEuuR8hIH8Ghkqwvq0g4dfeErgdwhUgsFGyJl7OUtlelaHBttGjdStk8CgALCwDs2dIW Ss4w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlGgEHIpJOdkIanUjLnZrDJHfwH1UfoKdaMlnVw1D/2QLNzAmsHP ssBNbVkxpvkVhC79oF2kc5+7qQ3K8kFhYQXFxRs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpc5ptKm2RlR+dfzBvSiuuypUL3ZfBWHVQjDtP48ztcvL9aECU2Pt/LtpEEumS0o6GfhSnkcfO4oDK0xrfGu7gQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9a95:: with SMTP id p21-v6mr5868328lji.60.1532717242175; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 11:47:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <153228891182.22962.4260855511063929653.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CO1PR05MB443EF021F73B448BD841754AE570@CO1PR05MB443.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAJE_bqepLSMmemshqrccNOd9=5pXHXGoC-pwSk0hC_YbGuiuYg@mail.gmail.com> <78870d7f-8fe0-3a8a-c2b8-7d3b25308bf3@gont.com.ar>
In-Reply-To: <78870d7f-8fe0-3a8a-c2b8-7d3b25308bf3@gont.com.ar>
From: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 11:47:10 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqeDK0qJTuRoLGtTZCrKo_7iD5XjLSY5X4nuRD+zfeg58w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-6man-unrecognized-opt-02.txt
To: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
Cc: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, IPv6 IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/AyXG6sPlStQwxA2allVY3kxHAJ0>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 18:47:27 -0000

At Fri, 27 Jul 2018 14:52:05 +0200,
Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> wrote:

> > The idea makes sense to me.  One quick comment:
> >
> > - I think the draft should be more specific about the option length
> >   rather than (implicitly) leave it to the implementation.  In fact, I
> >   don't see why it's not the obvious choice of '0'.
>
> While underspecified in the current doc, the option size that has an
> impact on packet drops. So a node might be able to convey a DO of, say 8
> bytes to the destination, but not one of, say, 512-bytes.

Yeah, I imagined that kind of intent, too.  And I wouldn't be opposed
to making the length variable per se.  But my point is that IMO such a
discussion should be explicitly included in the draft instead of
leaving it to reader/implementer's imagination.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email