ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-06

2017-05-05 03:31:32
Ines,

Thanks for the review.

Comments below.

Bob


On Apr 22, 2017, at 7:16 AM, Ines Robles 
<mariainesrobles(_at_)googlemail(_dot_)com> wrote:

Reviewer: Ines Robles
Review result: Has Nits

Document: draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-06.txt

Reviewer: Ines Robles

Review Date: April 21, 2017

Intended status: Standards Track


Summary:

This document describes Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6

I believe the draft is technically good. I have no “Major” issues
with this I-D. I have some minor comments.


Good, thanks.


Comments:

1- I think that it would be nice to add a graphical example that
describes the process of the Path MTU Discovery (including a Packet
Too Big Message). e.g. Figure 1 of RFC 5927[1].

I will consider it, but sure what it would look like.  Suggestions?


2- Section 1:

      2.1- I would add a reference when you mention black hole connection.
What about section 2.1 of [2] or [3]?


I will add RFC2923.  The other is an expired draft that I don’t think it 
appropriate to reference.

3- Section 2:

      3.1- EMTU_S => When it is defined, it references RFC6691. But this
term is not mentioned in RFC6691. I would add additionally a reference
to RFC 1122 [4] which defines EMTU_S.


OK

      3.2- I would add also the same references for EMTU_R.

OK


4.Section 3:

      4.1- In the first paragraph, I would add a reference to ICMPv6 the
first time that ICMPv6 Packet Too Big message is mentioned. And I
would add here also "(ICMPv6 PTB)" since it used further in the
document.

There is a reference to ICMPv6 the first time it shows up in Section 1.  I 
don’t think another is needed for ICMPv6 PTB.


      4.2- In the first paragraph: "...to send smaller fragments or ..."
--> I think it would be clearer "to send smaller packets or…"

I agree, “packets” is better here.  It’s consistent with the definition in 
Section 2.


      4.3- Second Paragraph: "...process ends when the node's estimate..."
-> "...process ends when the source node's estimate…"?

OK


      4.4- Last Paragraph: "can to appear" -> "can appear" . "...but is in
fact..." -> "...but it is in fact…"

OK


5. Section 4:

      4.1- about this: "The node MUST reduce the size of the packets it is
sending along the path". I would add an explanation to which size the
packet should be reduced (maybe based in an initial example)

This is described in the previous paragraph.



6.Section 5:

      6.1- I would add a reference to RFC 1122 [4] when MMS_S is mentioned.

OK



      6.2- Section 5.5: "Some transport protocols are not allowed to
repacketize when doing a retransmission..." I would add some
examples.

I will look into that.


7. Section 6:

      7.1- What about to mention Blind Performance-Degrading Attack [5]?

This is protected against by not allow the MTU to be set below 1280 and changes 
in rfc2460bis fragmentation.




[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5927#section-7.3
[2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2923
[3] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jacquin-opsawg-icmp-blackhole-problem-00
[4] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1122#page-58
[5] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5927#section-7



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-06, Bob Hinden <=