John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-grand-05: (with COMMENT)

John Scudder via Datatracker <> Thu, 01 July 2021 01:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E15253A101B; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 18:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: John Scudder via Datatracker <>
To: The IESG <>
Cc:,,, Bob Hinden <>,
Subject: John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-grand-05: (with COMMENT)
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.33.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: John Scudder <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 18:32:39 -0700
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2021 01:32:45 -0000

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6man-grand-05: 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
for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


Thanks for a clear, readable, well-organized, and well-motivated document. I
have just a few questions and comments below.

1. Section 5.2

   only potential impact would be for packets arriving to the router
   after the unsolicited NA from the host but before the rightful owner
   responded with the solicited NA.  Those packets would be sent to the
   host with the optimistic address instead of its rightful owner.
   However most likely those packets would have been dropped anyway:
   creating the INCOMPLETE entry is usually triggered by traffic, so the
   router probably has some packets in the buffer already, dropping
   subsequent packets received before the address resolution is

Wouldn’t the buffered packets (received before the unsolicited NA) be
misdelivered to the optimistic host? The quoted paragraph restricts itself to
packets arriving after the unsolicited NA.

2. Section 5.3.1

Couldn’t step 4 (host detects duplication) complete sometime after step 7
(router sends NS to host)? (This might also apply to 5.3.2.) If that's possible
the analysis would be a little less rosy, right?

3. Section 5.3.1

        However the same
   behaviour would be observed if changes proposed in this document are

Do you mean “are *not* implemented”?

4. Section 8.4

Please add SLLAO to terminology section or expand on first use.