Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-6man-grand-04
Michael Scharf via Datatracker <firstname.lastname@example.org> Tue, 08 June 2021 14:41 UTC
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A1633A32C3; Tue, 8 Jun 2021 07:41:23 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
From: Michael Scharf via Datatracker <email@example.com>
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-6man-grand-04
Reply-To: Michael Scharf <email@example.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2021 07:41:23 -0700
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2021 14:41:24 -0000
Reviewer: Michael Scharf Review result: Ready with Nits This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF discussion list for information. When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC firstname.lastname@example.org if you reply to or forward this review. This update to the IPv6 Neighbor Discovery does not directly affect Internet transport protocols. There are no apparent TSV issues that would prevent progressing the document. Nonetheless, I found some small nits: * Section 1: The last sentence "It can cause user-visible packet loss and performance degradation." may be a bit misleading. If a reliable transport protocol is used, packet loss is typically _not_ directly visible to the user. In many cases it may just result in user-visible performance degradation such as delays (e.g., delays of the TCP connection setup). A better wording would be: "It can cause packet loss and performance degradation that can be user-visible." * Section 3: I am not sure if BCP 14 capital latter language is needed in Section 3. At least, use of BCP 14 terms should be consistent inside Section 3. I find it confusing that capital letters are used in some requrirements but not in all. An easy fix would be not to use BCP 14 language in this section. * Section 8.7: The list of drawbacks may not be comprehensive. For instance, I suspect that reducing the probe retransmit interval could increase the risk of congesting a link that is already under load. If so, this would be another reason not to use the mechism discussed in Section 8.7.
- Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-6man-grand-… Michael Scharf via Datatracker
- Re: [Last-Call] Tsvart last call review of draft-… Jen Linkova