Hi Juan-Carlos,
Thanks for your review and comments.
I just posted a -03 version that attempts to address your comments.
Regarding the behavior of non-SNAC routers, I removed the use of BCP 14 language and added further reference to RFC 4861 and RFC 5175.
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag-03.html
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag-03
Looking forward to your feedback.
Thanks!
--
Jonathan Hui
Thanks for your review and comments.
I just posted a -03 version that attempts to address your comments.
Regarding the behavior of non-SNAC routers, I removed the use of BCP 14 language and added further reference to RFC 4861 and RFC 5175.
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag-03.html
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag-03
Looking forward to your feedback.
Thanks!
--
Jonathan Hui
On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 2:37 PM Juan-Carlos Zúñiga via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reviewer: Juan-Carlos Zúñiga
Review result: On the Right Track
I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag-02
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/
The document defines a new IPv6 ND Router Advertisement (RA) flag, the "SNAC
router" flag, which SNAC routers use to identify RAs sent by other SNAC
routers. This is a rather simple (although incomplete at the moment,
potentially waiting for IANA assignment) definition of a flag.
According to reference [draft-ietf-snac-simple-05], the flag is a bit inside
the RA flags field. For completeness, I think the full definition should be
included in a single document (e.g., in this document
draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag), and not duplicated.
The behaviour of the SNAC router to use this flag is defined in reference
[draft-ietf-snac-simple-05]. On the other hand, some behaviour of non-SNAC
routers is described in this document draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag. I’m
not sure if this behaviour modifies/updates RFC 4681 and 5175? If so, more
information is needed. If not, a reference would be more appropriate.
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
