Re: AD evaluation: draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-03

[Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>]

Suresh,

Thanks for your evaluation.

> On Jan 25, 2017, at 7:59 PM, Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
>  I have gone through draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-03 and I found it to be in good shape to progress. I just saw two minor issues that need to be addressed
> 
> * Section 1
> 
> I don’t think that his text that is copied over from RFC4821 is helpful. I think the earlier part of the paragraph is well written, useful and conveys exactly the right amount of context.
> 
> “          In this algorithm, the
> 	   proper MTU is determined by starting with small packets and probing
> 	   with successively larger packets.  The bulk of the algorithm is
> 	   implemented above IP, in the transport layer (e.g., TCP) or other
> 	   "Packetization Protocol" that is responsible for determining packet
> 	   boundaries.”
> 

I tend to agree and am happy to remove it.  I will note that there as a lot of debate on what this paragraph should say.  Unless someone objects, I will plan to remove it from the next version.


> * Section 3
> 
> I am not sure why the following text is required. What are these nodes? I thought we discussed this and decided to not put in such text.
> 
> "(regardless of whether it decrements the Hop Limit)"
> 
> I would suggest removing the text or adding an example of such a node.


I went back and read the email thread:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?qdr=a&email_list=ipv6&q=text%3A(regardless+of+whether+it+decrements+the+Hop+Limit)&as=1&so=date

The discussion does go back and forth, but ends with Ole closing the issue in the tracker:

   #13: Regardless of whether it decrements the Hop Limit

   Changes (by [e-mail]):

     * status:  new => closed
     * resolution:   => wontfix

I interpert it to leave it in.  I don’t have a strong view on this, happy to remove it.  Any objections?


> 
> Thanks
> Suresh
> 
> P.S.: I agree with Donald’s comment in his INT Dir review that the “security classifications” paragraph seems dated but I would prefer for it to be removed rather than rewritten.

OK, I will remove it.

Thanks,
Bob