Re: AD evaluation: draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-03

Suresh Krishnan <> Thu, 26 January 2017 22:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCA30129C18; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 14:21:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 38Ch-7K6zeo8; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 14:21:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7DEE91299B2; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 14:21:06 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c6180641-e73ff70000000a0b-1a-588a21e450a2
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 2E.91.02571.4E12A885; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 17:20:54 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 17:21:04 -0500
From: Suresh Krishnan <>
To: Robert Hinden <>
Subject: Re: AD evaluation: draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-03
Thread-Topic: AD evaluation: draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-03
Thread-Index: AQHSd4iXjA2mRRkD4kKirjH7D0ko7aFLi5YAgAAeHAA=
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 22:21:01 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_AA4F737CF8CF4741A5ED73999AA9B488ericssoncom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprGIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPgu4zxa4Ig2W3mS22vt/HZnFs7WsW i5dn3zM5MHvsnHWX3WPJkp9MAUxRXDYpqTmZZalF+nYJXBmffk9kLvg9ibHi+4+sBsamfsYu Rk4OCQETiY/d55m6GLk4hATWM0o0tO9kBUkICSxnlJhwJRbEZgMq2rDzMxOILSKgIfHzzxGw ZmaBIokHp9azgdjCApYSHxoPsEHUWEn0rLjCDmM/vvYebCaLgKpEw86lzCA2r4C9xNmvMxkh dhVJvLl5CszmFLCV+P/nAVgvo4CYxPdTa5ggdolL3HoynwniaAGJJXvOM0PYohIvH/9jhbCV JD7+ng/UywFUnyzx7IY/xCpBiZMzn7BMYBSZhWTSLISqWUiqIMKaEut36UNUK0pM6X7IDmFr SLTOmQtlW0scuXWFDVnNAkaOVYwcpcUFObnpRoabGIGxdUyCzXEH495ez0OMAhyMSjy8G651 RgixJpYVV+YeYpTgYFYS4W0DRqYQb0piZVVqUX58UWlOavEhRmkOFiVx3ush98OFBNITS1Kz U1MLUotgskwcnFINjGY+zxqnhM1IL23ZLHPp54onfybN4Dyd/n7j1nM3z09bxGASMakvrOde W7P9LLes05aajCrlmYX+a5zd/8v8XJPLX3lSTKsl/knvv/WtV0KYLk2V4+edwP4tmaH0Ymjd nlmPmbmK9VxaV4s97JH+eeLlFkNNSw/jhdUTVnXnh70JP7Lyn4HCEyWW4oxEQy3mouJEAPyP O0GpAgAA
Archived-At: <>
Cc: 6man WG <>, "" <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 22:21:08 -0000

Hi Bob,
  Removing things we agreed on. One thought inline.

On Jan 26, 2017, at 3:33 PM, Bob Hinden <<>> wrote:

* Section 3

I am not sure why the following text is required. What are these nodes? I thought we discussed this and decided to not put in such text.

"(regardless of whether it decrements the Hop Limit)"

I would suggest removing the text or adding an example of such a node.

I went back and read the email thread:<>

The discussion does go back and forth, but ends with Ole closing the issue in the tracker:

  #13: Regardless of whether it decrements the Hop Limit

  Changes (by<>):

    * status:  new => closed
    * resolution:   => wontfix

I interpert it to leave it in.  I don’t have a strong view on this, happy to remove it.  Any objections?

Not from me. But my read of the thread was that Ole was also questioning the value of the text. If the only case this covers is an ND proxy, I think the case is adequately handled by Section 4.1.1. of RFC4389.