Subject: Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-07: (with COMMENT)

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 04:31:34 -0700

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-07: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In this document, I see:

   IPv6 nodes SHOULD implement Path MTU Discovery in order to discover
   and take advantage of paths with PMTU greater than the IPv6 minimum
   link MTU [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc2460bis].  A minimal IPv6 implementation
   (e.g., in a boot ROM) may choose to omit implementation of Path MTU
   Discovery.

In draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-09:
   It is strongly recommended that IPv6 nodes implement Path MTU
   Discovery [RFC1981], in order to discover and take advantage of path
   MTUs greater than 1280 octets.  However, a minimal IPv6
   implementation (e.g., in a boot ROM) may simply restrict itself to
   sending packets no larger than 1280 octets, and omit implementation
   of Path MTU Discovery.

So a SHOULD in one document versus "strongly recommended" in the other.

We should reconcile the two texts.
Note: may and may are consistent.

ICMPv6 PTB => ICMPv6 Packet to Big (PTB)