Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-6man-icmp-limits-07

[Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>]

Hi Pete,

Thanks for the review. Comments inline.

On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 11:02 AM Pete Resnick via Datatracker
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Pete Resnick
> Review result: Ready with Nits
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
>
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-6man-icmp-limits-07
> Reviewer: Pete Resnick
> Review Date: 2020-02-17
> IETF LC End Date: 2020-02-25
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
>
> Summary:
>
> Nice simple document, easy to read, and pretty much ready to go. The one
> "issue" I have listed below is a process nit, but one that should be taken care
> of.

Thanks!

>
> Major issues:
>
> None.
>
> Minor issues:
>
> The tracker and the shepherd writeup say that the status of the document is
> "Proposed Standard", but the header of the document says "Standard". That's why
> the nits checker is complaining about downrefs; it thinks that this is going
> for Full Standard. The header should either say "Standards Track" (which is
> normal) or "Proposed Standard". (I hereby give Bob crap for missing that one as
> shepherd, and I think he should owe me a beer. ;-) )

Will fix.

>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>
> The Abstract and 1.1 both indicate that a source host that receives such an
> ICMPv6 error may be able to modify what it sends, which sounds to me like it
> means "on the fly". While that might be true, it seems more likely to me that
> it will be used for diagnostics to modify future behavior of either the sender
> or the receiver at a later date, as mentioned in 4.2. I think it's worth
> mentioning up at the top.

Yes, I would expect these are most useful for offline diagnostics at
least at the beginning. Will mention that.
>
> Section 1.3: You should probably update to the RFC 8174 text.
>
Okay.

> Section 5.1: "RECOMMENDS" isn't one of the keywords. It's not a problem in
> itself, but if people search the document for the keywords (and they do),
> they'll miss this one. Suggest reformulating the sentence to use RECOMMENDED.

Will fix, thanks for being pedantic!

>
>