Re: Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-grand-05: (with COMMENT)

[Jen Linkova <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 12:30 PM Jen Linkova <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 6:28 AM Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > The new text:
> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-grand-06#section-5.2
> > >
> > > Please let me know if it does not address your concerns or more work is needed.
> >
> > The re-write looks good to me on this point, thanks.  I am a little unsure
> > how the unicast NS (derived from the STALE->DELAY entry that uses the
> > host's address) in step 6 would result in a solicited NA from the rightful
> > owner in step 7, but I'm also not focusing very well right now.
>
> No, you are absolutely right, the text is not clear enough - thanks a
> lot for pointing this out, I do need someone fresh to proof-read it.
> Your comments make the document so much better!
> Step 7 is not triggered by Step 6 but Step 2.
>
> New text:
> "7. The rightful owner responds to the multicast NS sent at Step 2
> with a solicited NA with the Override flag set."
>
> and at the end of the section:
> "This section focuses on the scenario when the solicited NA from the
> rightful owner arrives after the unsolicited one sent from the
> Optimistic address (Step 5 and Step 7 respectively). If the solicited

This should be "Step 7 and Step 4" indeed.

> NA arrives first it changes the NC entry state from INCOMPLETE to
> REACHABLE. As discussed in Section 5.1, there will be no disruption
> for the rightful owner if the router already has a REACHABLE entry for
> the address when an unsolicited NA is received."
>
> > (nit) I'd also add a comma, for "Without the unsolicited NA, packet which
> > are in the buffer at Step 8".
>
> Fixed, thanks.
>
> --
> SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry



-- 
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry