Subject: IPv6 WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-ipv6-ra-flags-option-00.txt>

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 09:39:54 -0700

This starts a two week IPv6 working group last call on advancing

	Title		: IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option
	Author(s)	: B. Haberman, R. Hinden
	Filename	: draft-ietf-ipv6-ra-flags-option-00.txt
	Pages		: 7
	Date		: 2007-6-5

to Proposed Standard.  Please send substantive comments to the IPv6  
mailing list. Editorial comments can be sent to the authors.

Note:  I will be acting as the shepherding chair and Brian Haberman  
will be the responsible author for this document.

This last call will end on 20 June 2007.

Regards,
Bob Hinden
IPv6 WG co-chair

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

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 12:51:14 -0400

Hi Brian and Bob,
   I went through the latest version of this document. It is concise and 
well written. I would just like a new verification step to be added to 
the receiving algorithm in Section 4.

This is the current text

"   Upon reception, a receiver processing NDP messages containing this
    option:

    o  MUST ignore the option if it occurs in a message other than a
       Router Advertisement

    o  MUST ignore all instances of the option except the first one
       encountered in the Router Advertisement message"

I would like a new step

    o  MUST ignore the option if it is not the first option in the
       Router Advertisement message

to be inserted between the two current steps.

Cheers
Suresh

Bob Hinden wrote:
> Note:  I will be acting as the shepherding chair and Brian Haberman will 
> be the responsible author for this document.
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 14:43:27 +0200

Sorry to be slightly late...

I note that 2461bis says that unrecognized options MUST
be ignored. So that means that back-level implementations
will ignore any flag bits sent with this new option. Does
that have any side-effects that should be noted?

     Brian

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:02:01 -0400

I would say that it if a node does not support this new option, it will
probably not support any new functionality using the extended bit field.
 I am rather neutral on whether adding such text is necessary.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 16:41:52 +0200

If that's the only implication, I'm not sure it's worth
adding. It's a bit worrisome for future interoperability
(i.e. we shouldn't use this to add flags which will cause
failures if they are ignored).

     Brian