Thanks - I wasn't positive about the second one. Glad to have it
resolved quickly.
Joe
On 1/24/2013 5:57 PM, Allison Mankin wrote:
Joe and Fernando,
I just looked at how RFC 5297 is handled in the draft, to be that other
pair of eyes.
The first fix is right, to remove reference to RFC 5297 from that
sentence entirely.
Allison
On Jan 24, 2013 7:19 PM, "Joe Touch" <touch(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu
<mailto:touch(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/24/2013 1:24 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
>>
>> Joe,
>>
>> On 01/24/2013 04:35 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>>>
>>> FWIW, this document includes text that somewhat defeats the previous
>>> recommendations of TCPM regarding RFC5927.
>>>
>>> RFC5927 includes specific text indicating that the techniques described
>>> are being documented, but that the TCP standard was NOT being
changed to
>>> include those ICMP validation checks.
>>>
>>> This document states that:
>>>
>>> Many implementations fail to perform validation checks on the
>>> received ICMPv6 error messages, as recommended in Section 5.2 of
>>> [RFC4443] and [RFC5927].
>>
>>
>> Are we fine if I remove "and [RFC5927]"? -- Because RFC4443 does
>> recommend that ICMPv6 messages be validated.
>
>
> Sure.
>
>
>>> I.e., the second RFC does NOT recommend changes; it documents them.
This
>>> document should be VERY carefully reviewed to ensure that it does not
>>> undo the previous TCPM concerns about these techniques.
>>
>>
>> We can remove "and [RFC5927]" or change it to "...Section 5.2 of
>> [RFC4443] and documented in [RFC5927]"
>
>
> That might do it, but it would be useful if another pair of eyes
would check.
>
> Joe
>
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>