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

Tom Herbert <> Thu, 05 March 2020 19:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B07D93A0A20 for <>; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 11:18:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id edajtGpA-lY0 for <>; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 11:18:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::536]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 030AC3A0A1A for <>; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 11:18:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id dc19so8168209edb.10 for <>; Thu, 05 Mar 2020 11:18:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=lC+Oodm0HNOuN5ADzOsZzL00LGfesdQpNJQv250dsxk=; b=x1klHjiSj1P6Ez6aEvuQ/ApCSyLTSpYq0AbK+ABoz1ENhwbG7jFk0U0WmKfXyXMPm9 d2mXh8+sjmdwOZ3zGcJNcUtMrogeKP/TLhQZ0EzAzMSsaIdGlT9n82JDSI7oGw1OG4cj b70TF/wJcsXI+POVjKL4GasLZg/D0HkafkKaVrur6f9RnjcDRPP2cyl5ut64iBJZ2kvu GHnBNaPxL+kP9xubdReEOint6SIGUqHRgiykkEoxvBNLIpoqaENCJVkJNb0uOWbRLKt1 sETf26E+0pxqLquR47TCRukxNhU8lqePL8uqzjWQXO12BSDKP/qQpgnT2mH8j7o7jeUQ 2LSA==
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=lC+Oodm0HNOuN5ADzOsZzL00LGfesdQpNJQv250dsxk=; b=cSD06aZqHcSGlZJ1Tf37AUqLNtbfa6dkCiVF07V8xkj7nF4n/RZg92iWwPhpQbTWTN 8mnXy4AagvWjJwXrorQaiMO9JRniNHb+94mJfCj8u+f+G976ZwVlw3+yy9rAH9iI3rOP 5xxbBq4LfhnngWGVaxNovlLgYOa2VawrZrsd3k1nZuCpfBmVhfBdalNEvzbKxMcFUmxL mf45LkiFTCwRjb6wIC5y5GjZ3cyvYc3Qy7HW5zQRjbbpscrk/Hf/qQDaLdPQnbf6UKVw Q4fCMN3dr4arpFOrZUpNjJ+fYl0D/QGzMANIvcWNWF6Hi4axthBvvpujv1YE4l3c7ijX kEYQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ0yVK+mmQXFn//9Q12/hRsip5bjzWF8ttQe5lU+xV1o5DPN73Oa 3UQDoB+vL9BrqkPyiwRV1bXLVIJelkT4z7E0DJsD3Wysh0A=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: =?utf-8?q?ADFU+vu5Lg1lfM5wOYc04r6cv1vJlaJe9w/kCGhN6GVJ?= =?utf-8?q?QL3R2XjHbi5wSoSS3vVWsqomSaYzBxpnViZGa9dfKryFddI=3D?=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:bcf1:: with SMTP id op17mr8743559ejb.11.1583435883038; Thu, 05 Mar 2020 11:18:03 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Tom Herbert <>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2020 11:17:52 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-6man-icmp-limits-07
To: Pete Resnick <>
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: Thu, 05 Mar 2020 19:18:07 -0000

Hi Pete,

Thanks for the review. Comments inline.

On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 11:02 AM Pete Resnick via Datatracker
<> 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
> <>.
> 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.


> 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.

> 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!