[lisp] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20: (with DISCUSS)

Suresh Krishnan <suresh@kaloom.com> Thu, 27 September 2018 05:28 UTC

Return-Path: <suresh@kaloom.com>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietf.org
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65A37130DEE; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 22:28:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Suresh Krishnan <suresh@kaloom.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis@ietf.org, Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>, lisp-chairs@ietf.org, ggx@gigix.net, lisp@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.84.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <153802608641.21525.4981689568836441403.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 22:28:06 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/ffJDJ77ulLmoDr9D1U6VBLR4BXo>
Subject: [lisp] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lisp/>
List-Post: <mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 05:28:07 -0000

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20: 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-lisp-rfc6830bis/



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

* Section 7.1.

This should be an easy fix but I would like to see it fixed before publication.
When talking about IPv6 packets being larger than L, the correct behavior
should be to send an ICMPv6 message with Type 2 (Packet Too Big) instead of the
Destination Unreachable (Type 1) message as specified in the text. The text *is
correct* for IPv4 messages with the DF bit set where the Destination
Unreachable (Type 3) is the right kind of message to send.