Re: [Last-Call] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-6man-grand-04

Jen Linkova <> Mon, 21 June 2021 06:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 454243A257D; Sun, 20 Jun 2021 23:50:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.052
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.052 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y9w0Cp8MmOUL; Sun, 20 Jun 2021 23:50:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24AC43A257B; Sun, 20 Jun 2021 23:50:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id g4so26519372qkl.1; Sun, 20 Jun 2021 23:50:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=YrtGL+HWlHpjgWjS1S5uocWvHuvdQHRtndGsTG+Zc+I=; b=ArXvyrUxYGEEWcq/D11bLV8lCkIcivsPO4uxC5Eplsr9ct5p8rK7oHjWkzGFKJjFqo +3t7QfeqEKn0WvqMi+eDtruic5DaEQkxlkrpZwnkECIdwHYPbQdqeCmv086tFdST0LLr S3wR4is1WcBYCLfPwGmhFhh17lMAzp9uNOUHa2gTui2ZyardiIaExMNSanNycyq06War iRbuzLtsSepLTP9zVepdFL1jdZHnETabSSwenuEKOaie83ujJeZDjorgxCCERxpZZGkU pvk0AkRR/VoG8s8k41M7T6kXlbvY6QqDo8eguc8IwqfSxEGsHPevnCGmaMpKU4E0wuRQ gvwQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=YrtGL+HWlHpjgWjS1S5uocWvHuvdQHRtndGsTG+Zc+I=; b=HS1+641stpDyB8CeMI2ZY8kxA/cLBw/7WOezOUNcJS8PUMySUZppbksYyZaCRm+47y HtwIHfcPmLK4Mkc7sLW0vRmuvwqkBdfG7ZfzHxzE3297zib7wGAbkwO/fyRvkKDlQ84q Irv7aI9PBtvxYiGRXl6MqZ3o1+c3QHRwUref9r2N+NxInOKLtmkV2hDgdHAgQGJfEQwY TaOcMUCuFcGUUaAoJ2aUDyyT/0dITGIuee9dF8QG9lXuWncGv8ok0aRSiULgAGSwpvLS sVHNdigGws6qKP7qPxK9MxDSw2POHZIU88jKN+B8AFIGn9oIbhkdXQ/Gf15nFC88D/xQ 7wTw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5326cpyuXS59ywzRrWp2HQcy/XV7ePvqQSPxSsQdO5dC/tUGaH49 Vz87sxZaqhsMve9ILYwFCO9l/gYDO8zv1O5fkQ56mWdcJ7A=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw0diMr9nbNdA/TYIYuWD3AS5htHYjs8eEJgn0YuB7yb8tdIAkLnKstHE1Av6Af0FsFBtDS/Wslj0ifbkITFC8=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:503:: with SMTP id 3mr21905106qkf.417.1624258243563; Sun, 20 Jun 2021 23:50:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Jen Linkova <>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2021 16:50:32 +1000
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-6man-grand-04
To: Michael Scharf <>
Cc:,,, 6man <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2021 06:50:51 -0000

Hi Michael,

Thank you for the review and comments.
You made very good points, the -05 version will have the text changed

On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 12:42 AM Michael Scharf via Datatracker
<> wrote:
> Reviewer: Michael Scharf
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
> ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
> primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
> authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
> discussion list for information.
> When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
> review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
> if you reply to or forward this review.
> This update to the IPv6 Neighbor Discovery does not directly affect Internet
> transport protocols. There are no apparent TSV issues that would prevent
> progressing the document.
> Nonetheless, I found some small nits:
> * Section 1: The last sentence "It can cause user-visible packet loss and
> performance degradation." may be a bit misleading. If a reliable transport
> protocol is used, packet loss is typically _not_ directly visible to the user.
> In many cases it may just result in user-visible performance degradation such
> as delays (e.g., delays of the TCP connection setup). A better wording would be:
>   "It can cause packet loss and performance degradation that can be
>   user-visible."
> * Section 3: I am not sure if BCP 14 capital latter language is needed in
> Section 3. At least, use of BCP 14 terms should be consistent inside Section 3.
> I find it confusing that capital letters are used in some requrirements but not
> in all. An easy fix would be not to use BCP 14 language in this section.
> * Section 8.7: The list of drawbacks may not be comprehensive. For instance, I
> suspect that reducing the probe retransmit interval could increase the risk of
> congesting a link that is already under load. If so, this would be another
> reason not to use the mechism discussed in Section 8.7.
> --
> last-call mailing list

SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry