Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-icmp-limits-07: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom,

Thank you for the work put into this document. It is short and easy to read
while addressing a real problem in real deployments.

********************
*  I was about to add a DISCUSS for not using the right BCP14 RFC 8174 template
but please FIX this *       (as this is the first review, I would suggest to
issue today a revised I-D with just this fix *       before other IESG
reviews). * *  I was also about to ballot a DISCUSS on the comment in section
2.4...
*******************

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENTs and NITs. An answer will be
appreciated.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 1.2 --
Just wondering why the "aggregate header limits" has a section on its own. Feel
free to keep it like it is but this looks weird.

-- Section 2 --
Strongly suggest to use TBA1, TBA2, ... in order to avoid mistakes done by the
IANA.

-- Section 2.2 --
Why not using a new code for 'unrecognized header' by intermediate node ? I
really wonder why: it can only be confusing to existing implementation.

Please also ensure what is meant by 'destination' here... I would prefer to
avoid discussions when a routing-header is used (too many discussions around
this in 6MAN already)

-- Section 2.4 --
How can the original source distinguish among the two potential causes ? Why
not using two code points? Or am I missing something obvious? I was really
about to issue a blocking DISCUSS on this one.

-- Section 3 --
Some justifications on why using a different ICMPv6 format would really help
the reader.

-- Section 4.1 --
The wording "1) Real error (existing codes)" looks weird because the code
points in this documents will also be existing. Why not using "1) RFC 4443
error codes" ?

-- Section 5.2 --
Is applicable to RFC 4443 in general, so, I wonder why it is in this document.

== NITS ==

-- Section 1.1 --
If I was picky, then I would argue that "Extension Headers are placed between
the IPv6 header and the Upper-Layer Header in a packet" is not always true: if
Next-Header is 59 (No Next Header per RFC 8200 section 4.7) ;-)

-- Section 2.1 + 3.1--
s/IPv6 Fields:/IPv6 Header Fields:/