RE: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-impatient-nud-02.txt>

Erik,

Your responses and closure sounds good to me.  The document looks good to send to the IESG.

Thanks,

Hemant

-----Original Message-----
From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:nordmark@sonic.net] 
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 7:07 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: Bob Hinden; ipv6@ietf.org Mailing List
Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-impatient-nud-02.txt>

Hemant,
Thanks for your comments.

On 9/9/12 2:43 PM, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
> I support this document - it's important work and the document is really close to ship to the IESG.
>
> I thought this document should be on Standards Track but the document does not say anything about the Intended Status of the document.  Please fix that so that document includes Intended Status.  Additionally, if the document is on Standards Track, do we have at least one implementation of the protocol changes covered in the document?  Or the protocol changes are deemed minor and one does not need at least one implementation?

Fixed.

> Comments included below.
>
> COMMENTS:
>
> 1.  In the first paragraph of the Protocol Update section, please replace "route" by "router".  At least all of RFC 4861 works with a default router not a default route.

Fixed.

> 2. I think the following text in the Protocol Update section can be removed because the text is redundant with RFC 4861.
>
> [The UNREACHABLE state is conceptual and not a required part of this
> specification.  A node merely needs to satisfy the externally
> observable behavior of this specification.]

I instead expanded on it to say that this is consistent with the 4861 - 
I wanted to keep the statement in there to make it clear that this 
expansion with an additional state might not be that cumbersome since it 
depends on the implementation.

I've also taken care of the editorial comments below. All included in 
-04 of the draft.

Thanks again,
    Erik

>
> Editorial comments:
>
> 1. In the first paragraph of the Introduction section, please add a space between the two words shown below.
>
> [reachable.The].
>
> 2. In the Protocol Update section, change
>
> "Cache Entry as any time"
>
> to
>
> "Cache Entry at any time"
>
> In the same section change
>
> "no IPv6 packets"
>
> To
>
> "no IPv6 packet"
>
>
> 3. In the Example Algorithm section, do we need to change
>
> "An Implementation"
>
> to
>
> "An implementation"?
>
>
> 4. In the Security Considerations section, "belived" is misspelled.
>
> Regards,
>
> Hemant
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bob Hinden
> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 1:28 PM
> To: ipv6@ietf.org Mailing List
> Cc: Bob Hinden
> Subject: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-impatient-nud-02.txt>
>
> All,
>
> This message starts a two week 6MAN Working Group on advancing:
>
> 	Title           : Neighbor Unreachability Detection is too impatient
> 	Author(s)       : Erik Nordmark
>                            Igor Gashinsky
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-6man-impatient-nud-02.txt
> 	Pages           : 8
> 	Date            : 2012-07-31
>
>          http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-impatient-nud-02
>
> as Proposed Standard.  Substantive comments and statements of support for advancing this document should be directed to the mailing list.  Editorial suggestions can be sent to the authors.  This last call will end on September 18, 2012.
>
> Regards,
> Ole Troan & Bob Hinden
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>