Re: FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-6man-unrecognized-opt-02.txt

Hello, Ron,

Overall, I support the proposal.

Some quick comments:

* I'd change the name of the option. Text such as

 "because the Unrecognized
  option elicits the same behavior from all nodes, regardless of
  whether they recognize the option."

while understandable, sounds akward.

* Section 3:
Do you need the option not be variable length?

* Meta:
Based on RFC7872, it is clear that EH size has an impact on the
probability of the packet being dropped. So you might want to add this
parameter to the "probe protocol". In essense, it would end up something
like PMTUD, but for options. PMOS (Path Maximum Option Size? :-) )

* Section 5, security considerations:
I'd include some work of the security implications of EHs 8e.g.,
possible performance impact).

Thanks!

Cheers,
Fernando

On 07/22/2018 09:54 PM, Ron Bonica wrote:
> Please review...
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org <internet-drafts@ietf.org> 
> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2018 3:49 PM
> To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>; John Leddy <john_leddy@comcast.com>
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-6man-unrecognized-opt-02.txt
> 
> 
> A new version of I-D, draft-bonica-6man-unrecognized-opt-02.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Ron Bonica and posted to the IETF repository.
> 
> Name:		draft-bonica-6man-unrecognized-opt
> Revision:	02
> Title:		The IPv6 Unrecognized Option
> Document date:	2018-07-22
> Group:		Individual Submission
> Pages:		7
> URL:            https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-6man-unrecognized-opt-02
> 
> 
> Abstract:
>    This document describes a method by which a source node can determine
>    whether the underlying network can a) convey a packet that contains
>    IPv6 destination options from itself to a destination node, and b)
>    convey an ICMPv6 Parameter Problem message in the reverse direction.
> 
>    In order to support this method, this document defines a new IPv6
>    option, called the Unrecognized option.  Implementation of the
>    Unrecognized option is a trivial exercise, because the Unrecognized
>    option elicits the same behavior from all nodes, regardless of
>    whether they recognize the option.
> 
>                                                                                   
> 
> 
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> 
> The IETF Secretariat
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1