Re: [v6ops] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-v6ops-nd-cache-init

[Mikael Abrahamsson <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, 25 May 2020, Ron Bonica wrote:

> Folks,
>
> This message initiates a WG Last Call on draft-ietf-v6ops-nd-cache-init.

I read this draft in it entirety and have some comments.

2.2 typo: "follwing"

"   The proposed solution is discussed in [I-D.linkova-6man-grand].  In
    summary the follwing changes to [RFC4861] are suggested:"

3.4

"o  Some wireless devices are known to fiddle with ND packets and
       perform various non-obvious forms of ND proxy actions.  In some
       cases RSes might not even reach the routers."

"fiddle" might not be a great term to use here, as it seems to have 
multiple meanings according to Merriam Webster?



Then the security consideration section pointed to draft-ietf-6man-grand 
(or actually it didn't, it pointed to linkova-6man-grand which then 
pointed to draft-ietf-6man-grand), so I ended up reading that one as well.

These documents seem to belong together. I tried going back in 6man as 
well and couldn't find much discussion on how these two documents are 
supposed to be handled as a pair somehow? If this nd-cache-init is an 
operational document referencing 6man-grand and talking about this from an 
operational POV, then perhaps this should be stated in the introduction?

Commenting on both of them, I'd like to see some kind of text indicating 
that SAVI (RFC7039) RFCs had been taken into account and if anything 
specified in there might cause problems with the proposed approach in 
nd-cache-init and -grand.

But to sum up, I think the problem space these drafts are tackling is 
worth improving, and I support this work progressing.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [e-mail]