Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-02.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 06:36:44 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance WG of the IETF.

        Title           : IPv6 Node Requirements
        Authors         : Tim Chown
                          John Loughney
                          Timothy Winters
	Filename        : draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-02.txt
	Pages           : 40
	Date            : 2017-10-30

Abstract:
   This document defines requirements for IPv6 nodes.  It is expected
   that IPv6 will be deployed in a wide range of devices and situations.
   Specifying the requirements for IPv6 nodes allows IPv6 to function
   well and interoperate in a large number of situations and
   deployments.

   This document obsoletes RFC 6434, and in turn RFC 4294.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-02
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-02

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-02

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 08:29:37 +1300

Looks good. Three small points:

> 5.3.  Protecting a node from excessive EH options
...
> A host MAY disallow unknown options in destination options or hob-by-	
> hop options.  This should be configurable where the default is to	
> accept unknown options and process them per RFC2460.  If a packet	
> with unknown options is received and the host is configured to	
> disallow them, then the packet should be silently discarded.

Not sure why this still refers to 2460.

> 5.9.  Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes - RFC 4191
> 
>    "Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes" [RFC4191]
>    provides support for nodes attached to multiple (different) networks,
>    each providing routers that advertise themselves as default routers
>    via Router Advertisements.  In some scenarios, one router may provide
>    connectivity to destinations the other router does not, and choosing
>    the "wrong" default router can result in reachability failures.  In
>    order to resolve this scenario IPv6 Nodes MUST implement [RFC4191]
>    and SHOULD implement Type C host role.

I suggest that the last phrase should clarify that "Type C" is defined
in RFC 4191, because as written that is not obvious.

Are we sure that draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs is an Informative reference?

Regards
   Brian

---

From: Timothy Winters <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:48:39 -0400

Hi Brian,

> Not sure why this still refers to 2460.
Will fix in the next version.

> in RFC 4191, because as written that is not obvious.
We can clarify that in the next revision.

> Are we sure that draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs is an Informative reference?
At the moment we haven't had any normative text from that but it's
something that might change going forward.

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

-- 

Now offering testing for SDN applications and controllers in our SDN switch
test bed. Learn more today http://bit.ly/SDN_IOLPR