Re: Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64-08: (with COMMENT)

[Jen Linkova <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 3:16 AM Warren Kumari via Datatracker
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Like Alexey, I found the Scaled Lifetime section tricky / overly complex - I'm
> not actually quire sure why the value needs to be scaled by 8 -- the field is
> 13 bits, which gives ( I think!) a maximum value of 8192. If this were not
> scaled, it would be 136 minutes (8192/60), or ~2 1/4 hours -- I might be
> missing something, but surely if you haven't gotten an RA in much less than
> that, you have some larger set of issues?

Not necessary. Sending unsolicited RAs once an hour is not so
uncommon. In general it would be undesirable to have an option with
maximum lifetime lower than the default router lifetime. It might lead
into a situation when the NAT64 prefix lifetime is less than the
router lifetime/3 so the prefix might get deprecated before an RA
arrived/the default router expires. What we are trying to achieve here
is to align both lifetimes.

> I think that the complexity would be
> an easier pill to swallow if there was some justification for the complexity
> provided.
>
> If the text is reworded, I *think* it might make sense to break the explanation
> out of the main part of the "Option Format" bit, and do something like: "Scaled
> Lifetime: 13-bit unsigned integer, see Section 5.1" and then put the
> explanation text in Sec 5.1 - having it in this location makes the text feel
> "squished" and leads to an attempt to be overly terse.

Makes sense, thanks for the suggestion! The text will be updated in  -09.

-- 
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry