Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-grand-06: (with COMMENT)

Robert Wilton via Datatracker <> Thu, 01 July 2021 08:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99FD03A1C9E; Thu, 1 Jul 2021 01:25:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <>
To: The IESG <>
Cc:,,, Bob Hinden <>,
Subject: Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-grand-06: (with COMMENT)
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.33.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Robert Wilton <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2021 01:25:08 -0700
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2021 08:25:09 -0000

Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6man-grand-06: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to
for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


Thanks for this document.  I was surprised that ND didn't already have this
behavior so its addition is clearly a good thing.

A couple of minor comments:

(1) I wasn't really familiar with the term "off-link" and I was wondering
whether it's definition should be imported here, although I note that ND does
define and use this term, so readers familiar with the ND RFC would presumably
be familiar with it.

(2) I actually found the normative text updating RFC4861 in section 6.1.1 to
not be that readable, and I had to scan it a couple of times to spot the
distinction between router and host.  Possibly laying out the text slightly
differently would make the distinction between host and router behaviour more
obvious.  E.g.,

   When a valid Neighbor Advertisement is received (either solicited or
   unsolicited), the Neighbor Cache is searched for the target's entry.
   If no entry exists:

       Hosts SHOULD silently discard the advertisement.  There is no
       need to create an entry if none exists, since the recipient has
       apparently not initiated any communication with the target.

       Routers SHOULD create a new entry for the target address with
       the link-layer address set to the Target link-layer address
       option (if supplied).  The entry's reachability state MUST be
       set to STALE.  If the received Neighbor Advertisement does not
       contain the Target link-layer address option the advertisement
       SHOULD be silently discarded.