RE: Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-grand-06: (with COMMENT)

["Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jen,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jen Linkova <[e-mail]>
> Sent: 01 July 2021 13:09
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>
> Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]>; Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>; draft-
> [e-mail]; 6man <[e-mail]>; 6man Chairs <6man-
> [e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-grand-06: (with
> COMMENT)
> 
> Hi Robert,
> 
> On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 6:25 PM Robert Wilton via Datatracker
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > (1) I wasn't really familiar with the term "off-link" and I was wondering
> > whether it's definition should be imported here, although I note that ND
> does
> > define and use this term, so readers familiar with the ND RFC would
> presumably
> > be familiar with it.
> 
> Yes,  the idea of off-link and on-link addresses/communication is kind
> of fundamental for ND.
> I'll add the following text to the Terminology section:
> "On-link address: an address that is assigned to an interface on a
> specified link. See Section 2.1 of [RFC4861] for detailed definition.
> Off-link: the opposite of "on-link". See Section 2.1 of [RFC4861] for
> detailed definition."
> 
> Would it make it better?

That would be fine with me, but I'm happy to leave it entirely to your discretion as to whether you think this is needed/useful.  As you say, probably everyone who is more familiar with ND would know this anyway ...



> 
> > (2) I actually found the normative text updating RFC4861 in section 6.1.1 to
> > not be that readable, and I had to scan it a couple of times to spot the
> > distinction between router and host.  Possibly laying out the text slightly
> > differently would make the distinction between host and router behaviour
> more
> > obvious.  E.g.,
> >
> >    When a valid Neighbor Advertisement is received (either solicited or
> >    unsolicited), the Neighbor Cache is searched for the target's entry.
> >    If no entry exists:
> >
> >        Hosts SHOULD silently discard the advertisement.  There is no
> >        need to create an entry if none exists, since the recipient has
> >        apparently not initiated any communication with the target.
> >
> >        Routers SHOULD create a new entry for the target address with
> >        the link-layer address set to the Target link-layer address
> >        option (if supplied).  The entry's reachability state MUST be
> >        set to STALE.  If the received Neighbor Advertisement does not
> >        contain the Target link-layer address option the advertisement
> >        SHOULD be silently discarded.
> 
> Done, -07 will have the updated text, thanks for the suggestion!

Thanks,
Rob

> 
> --
> SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry