Subject: Re: Transmission and Processing of IPv6 Options (draft-gont-6man-ipv6-opt-transmit-00.txt)

From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 13:30:49 +0100 (CET)

On Fri, 19 Dec 2014, Fernando Gont wrote:

> We're planning to publish a rev soon... So we'd like to hear your 
> comments such that they can be addressed in the next rev....

I like this document and I think it fills a gap.

Comments:

2.2.

When it says "Drop (and log)", I propose that instead it should say "Drop 
(and potentially log)". "Potentially" can be replaced with an equivalent 
word. I just want to make it super clear that logging of the event isn't 
mandatory.

I would also suggest new wording to the following sentence:

"Devices should count the number of packets dropped/
    rejected, but the logging of drop/reject events should be limited so
    as to not overburden device resources."

Is replaced at the end with:

"... should be limit so packet the packet handling isn't affected by 
computing resources used to handle log entries." (or something to this 
effect). I believe this is the intention of "overburden device resources", 
but I would like to see something in there about what should be 
prioritized, ie the handling of packets.

Otoh, I am sure there are devices where they'd rather log the packet 
because this is an absolute requirement from somewhere, and they don't 
care about the consequences for other functions of the box, ie they'd 
rather log the traffic that needs logging and let this negatively affect 
the rest of the box, than to potentially miss log entries.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [email-masked]