[Last-Call] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-6man-hbh-processing-16

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Reviewer: Bernie Volz
Review result: Ready with Nits

I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-6man-hbh-processing.
These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area
Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just
like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve
them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more
details on the INT Directorate, see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/.

Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this document YES or NO
OBJECTION.

I did not find any major issues with the document and it appears to be well
written and clear. It modifies the procedures specified in RFC 8200 to make
processing of the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options header practical with the goal of
making these options useful to deploy and use in the Internet.

I did find the following minor issues with this document that should be
reviewed and corrected before publication:

- Section 3 defines terminology such as Control Plane. Yet the document uses
"Control Plane" and "control plane" (case difference) when it isn't fully clear
why the difference. It may be worth reviewing these uses and assure they are
correct and intended.

Also, the Control Plane definition should probably say "a router that processes
fields" (instead of process)?

Why include "Source"? I didn't find a place where this was used as "Source"?
Section 5.2 uses "source"; perhaps it should use "Source" (used multiple
times); section 6.1 also uses source (once).

- Section 4.0 - "less than 40B" is a bit cryptic? Perhaps just say "less than
40 bytes" (or 40 octets)?

- Section 5.2.2, why is Option in upper case in first sentence? Perhaps use
"Hop-by-Hop option" as I assume you are referring to those options? (Note that
section 6 uses "Hop-by-Hop option.)

- Section 6.1, in the third paragraph the first parenthesis is not closed --
likely should be "(e.g., [RFC9268])"?

- Section 7 - are there IANA pages that may need their reference updated from
RFC 82000 to this new RFC when published? For example, adding this new RFC to
the "Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options" description on the
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/ipv6-parameters.xhtml page?
And, adding this RFC to the "IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Option" table entry under "IPv6
Extension Header Types" on that page?

- Section 8:
-- First bullet has "process the a Hop-by-Hop" ... Likely drop the "the"?
-- Third bullet has an extra quote at the end of the sentence.
-- Also, ECMP is used here (first and only time) - perhaps it should be defined
or just use "Equal-cost multipath"? -- The following bullet uses a bit odd
wording (change option to options or "limit their" to "limits its")?

   *  The document added restrictions to any future new Hop-by-Hop
      option that limit their size and computational requirements.

- Bernie Volz



-- 
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux