[Last-Call] Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-nd-considerations-06

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

 



Dear Magnus,

 

Thank you very much for your review and sorry for our delayed reply.  We will issue a new version to address yours and other reviewers’ comments.  Please see specific responses in line.  

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2024 1:26 PM
To: tsv-art@xxxxxxxx
Cc: draft-ietf-v6ops-nd-considerations.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx; v6ops@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-nd-considerations-06

 

Reviewer: Magnus Westerlund

Review result: Ready with Nits

 

This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF discussion list for information.

 

When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC tsv-art@xxxxxxxx if you reply to or forward this review.

 

This document appears ready for publication. I only have a small number of nits that can be considered to be adopted for readability and clearness improvements.

 

Section 1:

ND can have issues in some scenarios due to the use of multicast,

   trusting all hosts, or installing NCE entries on demand.

 

Please expand NCE as this is the first usage of this acronym.

=>  Thank you.  Fixed.

 

Section 2.3 Section title is too long. Why not use the short hand that has been adopted in Section 2.4? For example: "Router-NCE-on-Demand related issues"

=> We shorten the title to “2.3. Router-NCE-on-Demand May Cause Forwarding Delay, NCE Exhaustion, and Address Accountability Issues”

 

Section 3: Please fix formating of Table 1, it is really hard to get an overview in the text version.

=> We acknowledge the issue you raised, but with pure text it’s difficult to draw a complex table. We did some minor changes.  If you have suggestion for further improvement please let us know.  

 

Section 3.10: "Source Address Validation Improvement [SAVI] binds an address to a

   port and rejects claims from other ports for that address."

Please clarify what the port is on. I get the impression there are an assumption of a L2 switch here.

=> We added “on an L2 switch” after “port” to clarify.

 

Thank you again.

 

XiPeng

 

 

-- 
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