Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review:draft-ietf-6man-resilient-rs-04
Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com> Wed, 18 February 2015 04:39 UTC
Return-Path: <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 475821A8978; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 20:39:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 W7pkcz3UkRDX; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 20:39:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from usevmg21.ericsson.net (usevmg21.ericsson.net [198.24.6.65]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E024C1A1B9A; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 20:39:41 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c6180641-f79916d00000623a-f4-54e3b76a06d1
Received: from EUSAAHC003.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.81]) by usevmg21.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id A1.32.25146.A67B3E45; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 22:49:31 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [153.88.4.49] (147.117.188.8) by smtps-am.internal.ericsson.com (147.117.188.81) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.210.2; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 23:39:38 -0500
Message-ID: <54E4176E.4060809@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 23:39:10 -0500
From: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, "rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org" <rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-6man-resilient-rs@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-resilient-rs@tools.ietf.org>
References: <F3ADE4747C9E124B89F0ED2180CC814F4EF24693@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <F3ADE4747C9E124B89F0ED2180CC814F4EF24693@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [147.117.188.8]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrPLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPoG729schBu+O8lmc/jaBxWLDn43s Fi/PvmeyWLFrPavF8zkzWSwWrHnK7sDmMeX3RlaPJUt+Mnl8ufyZLYA5issmJTUnsyy1SN8u gSvj5/yDTAVfpSpO7VnM2MC4T7SLkZNDQsBE4snNNcwQtpjEhXvr2boYuTiEBI4wSkyesJMV wtnMKPHo1RcWkCpeAW2JU81XWEFsFgFVibuLdzCB2GxAkzbs/AxmiwqESXzfvIMZol5Q4uTM Jywgg0QEjjFKPNh2DWwQs0C2xLH9V8GKhAWsJH73HGQEsYUEfCQ2ve0EG8Qp4Cux8PRHVoh6 C4mZ888zQtjyEtvfzmGGqNeU2LrmOyvEC4oSL47/ZJrAKDQLye5ZSNpnIWlfwMi8ipGjtDi1 LDfdyHATIzDEj0mwOe5gXPDJ8hCjAAejEg+vgd2jECHWxLLiytxDjNIcLErivGVXDoYICaQn lqRmp6YWpBbFF5XmpBYfYmTi4JRqYFwbELhvnfiNzVF6i9niv/bU7PSUO+6qph3c5nLFv9Ml d++Pur48+3PSXUa1GrG3v1huT5zKunHpmk7PTawzZ/QprL3Cs9b4ue2mAztnlVsuMp0uGOh4 akJE07oKhflGpdtVXTbumjX9IO/zO3kek6qtD/zt3nLe79+/dFWvzKj7tXw/1lx71K7EUpyR aKjFXFScCABOsHerUgIAAA==
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/GYBZJpuvWrhsg4YjarvdHWU45g4>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 07:42:44 -0800
Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>, "ot@cisco.com" <ot@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review:draft-ietf-6man-resilient-rs-04
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 04:39:44 -0000
Hi Les, Thanks a lot for your review. Please find my responses inline. On 02/16/2015 05:09 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: > Hello, > > I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. > The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related > drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and > sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide > assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing > Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir > > Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it > would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF > Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them throug > discussion or by updating the draft. > > Document: draft-ietf-6man-resilient-rs-04 > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-resilient-rs/> > > Reviewer: Les Ginsberg > > Review Date: February 16, 2015 > > IETF LC End Date: February 16, 2015 > > Intended Status: Standard > > Summary: This document is basically ready for publication, but has one > substantive issue that would require some text changes prior to publication. > > Major Issues: None > > Minor Issues: I admit to not having followed the progress of this > document prior to my review - but I have read the email archives and do > understand that the scope of this document has been deliberately limited > and there has been significant "wordsmithing" of the document to reflect > the limited scope. I am therefore a bit reluctant to suggest further > changes - but I thought this might be worth discussing. > > The mechanism defined in this document allows a host to send RSs beyond > what is defined in RFC 4861. Use of this mechanism is optional. The only > MUST which this document imposes is that if a host chooses to use the > mechanism defined it MUST use the backoff algorithm defined in Section 2 > of this document. However, Section 2 explicitly states that a host is > free to cease sending RSs whenever > > "it is willing to accept that no router exists" > > I therefore find the following sentence in Section 2.1 inappropriate: > > "If an RA is recieved from a router and it does not result in a default > route (i.e. Router Lifetime is zero) the host MUST continue > retransmitting the RSs." > > I think this sentence should be removed. I believe the intent of the > sentence is to indicate that the reception of an RA provides positive > indication that IPv6 is enabled on the interface and therefore it is > useful to continue to utilize the mechanism - but the introduction of a > MUST here is in contradiction to the earlier quote from Section 2 (see > above). It also raises the unanswered question as to how long a host > MUST continue to send RSs once it has received an RA. The exception text was added to allow such hosts to turn off soliciting on IPv4-only links. Once an RA is received from a router (even when the router is not willing to the default router), it signals to the host that the link is not an IPv4-only link. Hence the MUST for the host to continue sending the RSes. Does that make sense? > > Nits: > > Should you decide to keep the above sentence in Section 2.1 note that > "recieved" is misspelled. :-) Will fix. Thanks. Regards Suresh
- [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review:draft-ietf-6man-resilient… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review:draft-ietf-6man-resil… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review:draft-ietf-6man-resil… James Woodyatt
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review:draft-ietf-6man-resil… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)