Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-maxra-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6man-maxra-03: Discuss

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-maxra/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm concerned that this normative statement is ambiguous (2nd paragraph of
section 4), and that the ambiguity around allowed values may lead to interop
issues:

   AdvDefaultLifetime
   MUST either be zero (the router is not to be used as a default
   router) or be a value between MaxRtrAdvInterval and 65535.

>From the text in section 3, I infer that MaxRtrAdvInterval is *not* an allowed
value.

>From the "no greater than 65535" language, I infer that 65535 *is* an allowed
value.

Please ensure that your normative statement here is very clear about whether
"between" is intended to include its high and low limits as acceptable values.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 4 contains:

   As explained in Section 3, the relationship between MaxRtrAdvInterval
   and AdvDefaultLifetime must be chosen to take into account the
   probability of packet loss.

The use of a non-normative "must" here indicates that you probably want to
update your RFC2119 boilerplate to be RFC8174 boilerplate.