Support for Adjustable Maximum Router Lifetimes per Link
draft-ietf-6man-maxra-04
Yes
(Terry Manderson)
No Objection
(Alexey Melnikov)
(Alia Atlas)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Alvaro Retana)
(Benoît Claise)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
Recuse
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.
Warren Kumari
No Objection
Comment
(2017-10-24 for -03)
Unknown
I like what the document does, but it could really really do with a good editing pass; I've sent some nits / comments to Suresh off-list. Some bits I was unable to parse, but I trust Suresh to fix them. I'm a bit surprised it doesn't mention RFC7772 - it feels very related to me, but I may just be wrong!
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -03)
Unknown
Adam Roach Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2017-11-29)
Unknown
Thanks for addressing my discuss and comment. I find the formulation in the document being updated problematic, but you've done a deft job of not repeating the error in this document.
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -03)
Unknown
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -03)
Unknown
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -03)
Unknown
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -03)
Unknown
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2017-11-29)
Unknown
Editorial Comments: - Abstract: Please mention the fact this updates 4861 in the abstract. - Given that there are at least a few "should" and "must" instances in lower case, please consider using the boilerplate from 8174 rather than 2119.
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -03)
Unknown
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Eric Rescorla Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2017-10-17 for -03)
Unknown
I'm just testing something, and wanted to get a protocol trace. Will look at draft later.
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -03)
Unknown
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2017-10-16 for -03)
Unknown
Just one quick question to double-check: Are the defaut values in RFC4861 still recommended or not? Maybe note this in the text to avoid any confusion! Also, as already noted in the sphepherd write-up, the abstract should mention the update.
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2017-11-30)
Unknown
Everyone likely knows this, but is it worth adding a suggestion to retry rejected RAs with a Router Lifetime of more than 9000 seconds, with a new RA that uses 9000 seconds? 5. Host Behavior Legacy hosts on a link with updated routers may have issues with a Router Lifetime of more than 9000 seconds. In the few implementations we have tested with general purpose operating systems, there does not seem to be any issues with setting this field to more than 9000, but there might be implementations that incorrectly (since RFC4861 requires receivers to handle any value) reject such RAs. I think this meshes with Mirja's suggestion to state whether 9000 is still the default ...
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
Recuse
Recuse
(2017-10-23 for -03)
Unknown
I am an author.