Re: Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-grand-05: (with COMMENT)

Jen Linkova <> Fri, 02 July 2021 02:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4888D3A0B8B; Thu, 1 Jul 2021 19:30:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.847
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.847 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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_BLOCKED=0.001, 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 I5Hft4cSFx5I; Thu, 1 Jul 2021 19:30:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 722AD3A0BA0; Thu, 1 Jul 2021 19:30:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id w13so11262546edc.0; Thu, 01 Jul 2021 19:30:21 -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=ucwNuBljOzERFwxsPoGHmgDBFfY5ha3LhYAS0uR4QwM=; b=NtvsD8ey4W7xfMdvuqe1xKxqo1cNyEc49zv4aI1iVvvW1p58o9/7mxYN9VxzD6IQes c5oQHX+eSbkLiPTNzKkegPV1OibAFMWAgVt641QbdRlC28vKPY2WQ3AKt2rOV/WQZMXD jWgVK26gugokEPPRy2g9UmSNb/jyrjfXwQ/Rn1PHtlt8jBmz4iYoWLPgSQPK1unavjD3 M2cFFfN0ADAMD8+cTUFm1GeNDsVPsrfAtesMCAXLH1KOSdsrh0s5r1iLtyWEd7jLVYec urR8Ef8LN3id1QiYiwObYaAaUyhB3Ltt7RKo6+hJBKN03zaWhewpePgrwefRE22H9lKF evlg==
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=ucwNuBljOzERFwxsPoGHmgDBFfY5ha3LhYAS0uR4QwM=; b=sodo0B6YL0Vbuq0Ptfm5T8ICmWvKJ2WTlWQYbNDx4mStfcUn09fhKpd4hg5bcIWf30 y7bsg0kZAz1V+EfG+Ds9N/xgqryN9+fbTGeWs0HEOCTKhSDhiZigJOCWlGlVSbHSHYz/ avuRzUfi+QKh0ymcZNIzFs/fXR4mHt2ghiwTuAHIoXJKWkhLGkrFBej4h1e4M+VOk+B2 QLkIWziIdFFfnOeZEf4jVImw33Edy00umXPJhh1HNzVihaAgebyu7ogIJ+kfRsRU0kHD hBQ/IXOZb2Wcp28D5n+cP953If2xjsuG4fyYL7nyqIR1arGsefzDMzcZw+/Xy5os6INZ OXpg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530S5JlgWko7gd7GIBYtQb1ztNCHRiOoJvzjyIiPxbqzc17gjRcu gV29PWFtafcDTLNlBA9Wq2lM9DdaxPmoxarJr0Q=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwygx5ZPpSM9mJJpcOl+DKDpF0UoeNxPJeOY+K1ZQg1ZU7ETWWIoeuzDy3UQjaPin4iBZRGgEBMTUlB1CAaBMM=
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:dc53:: with SMTP id g19mr3629710edu.226.1625193019144; Thu, 01 Jul 2021 19:30:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Jen Linkova <>
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2021 12:30:06 +1000
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-grand-05: (with COMMENT)
To: Benjamin Kaduk <>
Cc: The IESG <>, Bob Hinden <>,, 6man <>, 6man Chairs <>
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: Fri, 02 Jul 2021 02:30:28 -0000

On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 6:28 AM Benjamin Kaduk <> wrote:
> > The new text:
> >
> >
> > Please let me know if it does not address your concerns or more work is needed.
> The re-write looks good to me on this point, thanks.  I am a little unsure
> how the unicast NS (derived from the STALE->DELAY entry that uses the
> host's address) in step 6 would result in a solicited NA from the rightful
> owner in step 7, but I'm also not focusing very well right now.

No, you are absolutely right, the text is not clear enough - thanks a
lot for pointing this out, I do need someone fresh to proof-read it.
Your comments make the document so much better!
Step 7 is not triggered by Step 6 but Step 2.

New text:
"7. The rightful owner responds to the multicast NS sent at Step 2
with a solicited NA with the Override flag set."

and at the end of the section:
"This section focuses on the scenario when the solicited NA from the
rightful owner arrives after the unsolicited one sent from the
Optimistic address (Step 5 and Step 7 respectively). If the solicited
NA arrives first it changes the NC entry state from INCOMPLETE to
REACHABLE. As discussed in Section 5.1, there will be no disruption
for the rightful owner if the router already has a REACHABLE entry for
the address when an unsolicited NA is received."

> (nit) I'd also add a comma, for "Without the unsolicited NA, packet which
> are in the buffer at Step 8".

Fixed, thanks.

SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry