Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-icmp-limits-07: (with COMMENT)
Barry Leiba via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 09 March 2020 05:28 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DC503A1185; Sun, 8 Mar 2020 22:28:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-6man-icmp-limits@ietf.org, 6man-chairs@ietf.org, ipv6@ietf.org, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, bob.hinden@gmail.com
Subject: Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-icmp-limits-07: (with COMMENT)
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.120.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Message-ID: <158373173349.6902.2821996265997826829@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2020 22:28:53 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/pODJddh5md5AKVmmF2d17AaXa-g>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2020 05:28:54 -0000
Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-6man-icmp-limits-07: 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 https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-icmp-limits/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The correct intended status in the header is “Proposed Standard”. — Abstract — Network nodes may discard packets if they are unable to process protocol headers of packets due to processing constraints or limits. May they discard packets if they are unable to process protocol headers of *other* packets? Or are you talking about the protocol headers of the packets being discarded? The latter, yes? So, “if they are unable to process those packets’ protocol headers” (or “of those packets”). When such packets are dropped, the sender receives no indication so it cannot take action to address the cause of discarded packets. This sounds like the reason it receives no indication is to prevent it from taking action. I would say, “receives no indication, thus it cannot”. — Section 1 — New ICMPv6 code points are defined as an update to [RFC4443]. The document header does not say that this “updates” 4443. Do you maybe mean “as an extension to RFC4443”? — Section 1.1 — RFC 8200 does not capitalize “extension header” nor “upper-layer header”; is there a reason you do in this document? Shouldn’t this be consistent with 8200? — Section 1.3 — Éric already got this: Please use the new BCP 14 boilerplate and add a normative reference to RFC8174. — Section 3.2 — This error is sent in response to a node dropping a packet because the aggregate header chain exceeds the processing limits of a node. I’m confused, so maybe I just am not understanding: this says that Destination Unreachable / headers too long is sent *not* by the note that dropped the packet, but *in response* to that node? What an I missing? Should this maybe say this instead?: NEW This error response is sent when a node drops a packet because the aggregate header chain exceeds the processing limits of the node. END
- Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-icm… Barry Leiba via Datatracker