Subject: [Fwd: WGLC for draft-ietf-dna-protocol-06.txt]

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 11:29:22 -0400

Hi Folks,
   We would like to hear your comments on this document as well. This 
document is a significant update to ipv6 neighbor discovery and we would 
like some more eyeballs. Please spare some time from your busy schedule 
to give it a look.

Thanks
Suresh

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: WGLC for draft-ietf-dna-protocol-06.txt
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 15:47:24 -0400
From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
To: Dna <[email-masked]>
CC: Greg Daley <[email-masked]>,  Jari Arkko 
<[email-masked]>

This mail starts a 2 week working group Last Call for comments for the
following dna working group document

draft-ietf-dna-protocol-06.txt

to be sent to the IESG for consideration as a Standards Track RFC.

Please review the document carefully, and send your feedback to the
list. Please also indicate whether or not you believe that this
document is ready to go to the IESG.

The last call will end on 2007/07/18.

Cheers
Suresh & Greg

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:25:28 +0200

Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> Hi Folks, We would like to hear your comments on this document as
> well. This document is a significant update to ipv6 neighbor
> discovery and we would like some more eyeballs. Please spare some
> time from your busy schedule to give it a look.

Really this should be targeted WG to WG, not such large set of contexts...

I reply to IPv6 list only, for an IPv6-only aspect:

Encoding options in the RA seems to be incosistent with ND Proxy flag P
of RFC4389 (DNA spec uses flag 'D' DNAAware at 'P' place):

DNA draft:
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>     | Cur Hop Limit |M|O|H|Pr |D|C|R|       Router Lifetime         |
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

RA flags option draft:
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>    |M|O|H|Prf|P|R|R|
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Alex

> _______________________________________________
> netlmm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm
> 

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:30:17 -0400

Hi Alex,
   Thanks for the review. We are aware of this issue and have already 
noted this. I would like to wait until the document progresses to make 
sure that there is no flag conflict.

I had raised the issue after the 66th IETF with the IPv6 chairs as noted 
in the dna minutes

http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06jul/minutes/dna.txt

and requested allocation of the last 2 bits in this mail to the IPv6 
mailing list.

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg06561.html

If we manage to get the two bits allocated, we will go ahead and make 
the edit you suggested. But if some other spec manages to grab those 
bits we may need to rewrite the proposal with the RA flags option instead.

Cheers
Suresh