Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-icmp-limits-05.txt
Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Mon, 23 September 2019 09:24 UTC
Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B32D120072 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 02:24:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A_pjzK-2BrVR for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 02:24:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14A9A12004A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 02:24:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (unknown [IPv6:2a01:79c:cebd:47d8:940:157c:1d72:41a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3EDC84E11B02 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 09:24:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF4D01D72C7A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 11:24:14 +0200 (CEST)
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-icmp-limits-05.txt
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 11:24:14 +0200
References: <156813714123.27560.11545725069258655310@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <156813714123.27560.11545725069258655310@ietfa.amsl.com>
Message-Id: <6E110E41-5464-42EB-91C6-0DCE028D9C5D@employees.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/pW1VanYuakRXdE86VEjG49PS7tw>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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, 23 Sep 2019 09:24:21 -0000
Hi Tom, The new draft looks good. I read through the whole document again, and I ended up finding myself unclear of a couple of points: - when is the destination unreachable "ICMPv6 error for aggregate header limits" used versus e.g. the "parameter problem, extenshion header chain too long"? - what is the logic that determines when a parameter problem type versus a destination unreachable type is used? Best regards, Ole > On 10 Sep 2019, at 19:39, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance WG of the IETF. > > Title : ICMPv6 errors for discarding packets due to processing limits > Author : Tom Herbert > Filename : draft-ietf-6man-icmp-limits-05.txt > Pages : 15 > Date : 2019-09-10 > > Abstract: > Network nodes may discard packets if they are unable to process > protocol headers of packets due to processing constraints or limits. > When such packets are dropped, the sender receives no indication so > it cannot take action to address the cause of discarded packets. This > specification defines several new ICMPv6 errors that can be sent by a > node that discards packets because it is unable to process the > protocol headers. A node that receives such an ICMPv6 error may be > able to modify what it sends in future packets to avoid subsequent > packet discards. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-icmp-limits/ > > There are also htmlized versions available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-icmp-limits-05 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-icmp-limits-05 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6man-icmp-limits-05 > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > --------------------------------------------------------------------
- I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-icmp-limits-05.txt internet-drafts
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-icmp-limits-05.txt Tom Herbert
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-icmp-limits-05.txt Bob Hinden
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-icmp-limits-05.txt Tom Herbert
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-icmp-limits-05.txt Ole Troan