Re: 6MAN WG Adoption Call: draft-nordmark-6man-rs-refresh-01

Jinmei,

Thanks for your comments.
Responses below.

On 4/10/15 9:57 AM, 神明達哉 wrote:
>
>
> On the draft itself, I have a few minor comments:
>
> - Section 5:
>     Refresh Time:  16-bit unsigned integer.  Units is seconds.  The all-
>                    ones value (65535) means infinite.
>
> What should the host do if this is 0?  Should it just keep sending
> RSes? (I'm joking).
Good catch. I'm inclined to just make zero be reserved, and state that 
hosts should ignore an RTO if the Refresh Time is zero - i.e. treat the 
RA as if the RTO was not present.
Is that sufficient?

We could pick some arbitrary number (10 seconds?) and say that it is a 
lower bound, but I don't know how to pick such a number.

>
> - Section 7: remove 'section'.
>     [...]  Note that section
>     Section 9 says that routers SHOULD report such inconsistencies to
>     system management.
Fixed.

>
> - Section 8.2: s/be be/may be/ (?)
>
>     [...]  That be be performed at deployment time (e.g., only
>     hosts which are known to support RTO are configured with the layer 2
>     security keys), or the routers detect any RSs which do not include
I think "could be" is better since it avoids potential confusion with 
uppercase MAY.
>
> - Section 8.3: remove '.' before 'Note':
>
>     .  Note that such new information is not likely to reach sleeping
>     hosts until those hosts refresh by sending a RS.
Fixed.

Thanks,
    Erik

>
> --
> JINMEI, Tatuya
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>