Re: [IPv6] Working Group Last Call for <draft-ietf-6man-pio-pflag>

[Tim Chown <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

> On 4 Apr 2024, at 22:06, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Bob Hinden <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> This message starts a new two week 6MAN Working Group Last Call on
>> advancing:
> 
> I read it, and I like it.

Likewise.  And an important companion to the PD draft of course.

Nits:

Section 1:
"This solves the scaling issues
   because the amount of state that has to be maintained by the network
   does not depend on how many addresses are in use.”

I think it always depends on the numb er of addresses, perhaps you mean “devices” as devices can have one prefix for their needs rather than multiple addresses? (The justification for the PD draft probably doesn’t need to be repeated in this document.)

Section 3:
“This is suboptimal” - change to “Using SLAAC would be suboptimal”
Else I read it as putting the info in the RA as being suboptimal.

Section 4:
Typo “opearator"

Section 5.1:
Typo “DHPCv6”

Section 7.1:
The changes to RFC 4861 section 4.6.2 are a little confusing as presented.
The reserved field was originally 6 bits, then became 5 bits with the R bit of RFC 6275, and will now be 4 bits with the new P bit.
But the text seems to be written as a change from A and 6 bits?
As an aside I was also surprised that RFC 4861 doesn’t say “Updated by RFC 6275” in its header.

Section 7.2:
Typo “collink” should now be “ietf”
And “as if the A”, adding “the”.

Section 8:
Typo “might sent” -> “might send” and “ignore A flag” -> “ignore the A flag”

Tim