[IPv6]Jim Guichard's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-hbh-processing-17: (with COMMENT)

[Jim Guichard via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Jim Guichard has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6man-hbh-processing-17: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-hbh-processing/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

# Jim Guichard, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-6man-hbh-processing-17. All
comments provide indits line numbers from v-17 of the document.

84         An IPv6 packet includes Hop-by-Hop options by including a Hop-by-Hop
85         Option header.  The current list of defined Hop-by-Hop options can be
86         found at [IANA-HBH].  The focus for this document is to set the
87         minimum requirements for router processing of Hop-by-Hop options.

Jim> The previous paragraph says that the document has the goal of making IPv6
Hop-by-Hop options useful to deploy and use at IPv6 routers and hosts. However,
the above does not mention hosts (?). Is this just an omission in the text or
is the focus only for routers and therefore the previous paragraph is
inaccurate? Please clarify.

111        *  control plane: IPv6 routers exchange control information through
112           the control plane.  This processes the management and routing
113           information exchanged with other routers.  Routers process fields
114           contained in packet headers.  However, they do not process
115           information contained in packet payloads.

Jim> Are the last two sentences accurate in the context of a control plane
definition? While both sentences are true they do not seem relevant to the
control plane.

309        When a packet includes one or more Extension Headers, the Next Header
310        field of the IPv6 Header does not identify the transport protocol.

Jim> Wouldn’t it be better to say ‘what’ the Next Header field indicates rather
than what it ‘does not’. There are lots of things it ‘does not’ indicate.