Subject: IPv6 WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-v3-04.txt

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 07:33:27 -0400

All,
      This starts a 2-week IPv6 Working Group Last Call on:

      Title     : Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6)for the
                   Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification
      Author(s) : A. Conta, S. Deering
      Filename  : draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-v3-04.txt
      Pages     : 26
      Date      : 2004-6-3

This document is being re-cycled at Draft Standard.  The last call
will end on May 18, 2004.  Substantive comments should be directed
to the mailing list.  Editorial comments may be sent to the list or
the editor.

Regards,
Bob & Brian
IPv6 WG co-chairs

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

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 16:13:04 +0300 (EEST)

> to the mailing list.  Editorial comments may be sent to the list or

Please consider my mail earlier today on IANA Considerations as part
of WG LC.  That part needs a lot more baking, I fear.

Further, my earlier issue still stands -- I'd prefer to remove an
unimplemented ICMP source address selection specification, i.e., case
(c) in section 2.2.  Features that nobody found useful to implement
and deploy are something that should be removed at Draft Standard. I'd
be interested in hearing others opinions about this though (Jinmei was
the only one who commented AFAIR, without much preference either way)

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 15:16:44 -0400

All,
      The last call actually ends on June 18, 2004 not May 18.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Derek Fawcus <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 18:24:40 +0100

On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 04:13:04PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
> > will end on May 18, 2004.

Hmm - that's what I get for not monitoring the list all the time...
One day late for last call.

> the only one who commented AFAIR, without much preference either way)

I did implement it.  So you have at least one implementation,  don't know
if anyone else did to make a second...

DF

---

From: Fred Templin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 11:34:26 -0700

Brian,

Sorry to come in so late with this, but I have a comment on
this document. In several diagrams, we see the phrase:

  "As much of invoking packet as will fit without the
   ICMPv6 packet exceeding the minimum IPv6 MTU"

(A variation of this phrase also appears in section 2.4 (c),
accompanied by an even stronger "MUST include".)

In each of these instances, I would like to see: "will fit"
replaced by "possible", as in:

  "As much of invoking packet as possible without the
   ICMPv6 packet exceeding the minimum IPv6 MTU"

Reason is that: "will fit" is redundant with: "without ... exceeding
the minimum IPv6 MTU". Secondly, "will fit" when accompanied
by "MUST include as much of the IPv6 offending (invoking) packet"
in section 2.4 (c)  seems to presume that all implementations will
be able to efficiently access up to 1280 bytes of the offending packet
when generating the error, and in some cases this may not be possible.

Fred
[email-masked]