Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-02.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Looks good. Three small points:

> 5.3.  Protecting a node from excessive EH options
...
> A host MAY disallow unknown options in destination options or hob-by-	
> hop options.  This should be configurable where the default is to	
> accept unknown options and process them per RFC2460.  If a packet	
> with unknown options is received and the host is configured to	
> disallow them, then the packet should be silently discarded.

Not sure why this still refers to 2460.

> 5.9.  Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes - RFC 4191
> 
>    "Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes" [RFC4191]
>    provides support for nodes attached to multiple (different) networks,
>    each providing routers that advertise themselves as default routers
>    via Router Advertisements.  In some scenarios, one router may provide
>    connectivity to destinations the other router does not, and choosing
>    the "wrong" default router can result in reachability failures.  In
>    order to resolve this scenario IPv6 Nodes MUST implement [RFC4191]
>    and SHOULD implement Type C host role.

I suggest that the last phrase should clarify that "Type C" is defined
in RFC 4191, because as written that is not obvious.

Are we sure that draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs is an Informative reference?

Regards
   Brian