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

[Jen Linkova <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 6:28 AM Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > The new text:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-grand-06#section-5.2
> >
> > 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