Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)
draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-11
Yes
(Margaret Cullen)
No Objection
(Bill Fenner)
(Cullen Jennings)
(David Kessens)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Mark Townsley)
(Ross Callon)
(Russ Housley)
(Sam Hartman)
(Ted Hardie)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 11 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2006-11-28)
Unknown
Section 6.2.1., paragraph 12: > Default: 0.33 * MaxRtrAdvInterval The default MinRtrAdvInterval can only be calculated according to this formula if MaxRtrAdvInterval >= 9 seconds, because otherwise (MaxRtrAdvInterval can be as low as 4 seconds) it becomes less than the minimum of 3 seconds.
Margaret Cullen Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Bill Fenner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Brian Carpenter Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2006-11-23)
Unknown
Dialogue between Gen-ART reviewer (Scott Brim) and author: > 3.0 protocol overview > > - Duplicate address detection > > "Duplicate Address Detection: How a node determines that an > address it wishes to use is not already in use by another node." > > should be > > "Duplicate Address Detection: How a node determines whether or > not an address it wishes to use is already in use by another > node." => ok. > > - Router advertisement: the phrase "on-link determination" has not > appeared before. It should be explained. => We can add a reference here. > 6.2.1 router config variables > > - AdvCurHopLimit > > "The value should be set to that current diameter of the > Internet." > > s/that/the/ => ok. ["Current diameter of the Internet" is an interesting concept - BC] > 8.2. Router Specification ... > - "In the Target Address field: the address to which subsequent > packets for the destination SHOULD be sent." > > That's talking about the recipient of the redirect. It's not > about the sender's behavior, so this SHOULD should not be > capitalized. => Hmm. That's true.
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2006-11-23)
Unknown
I believe that the first and second sentence in the first paragraph of 6.2.1 may be interpreted as contradictory and be confusing: OLD: A router MUST allow for the following conceptual variables to be configured by system management. The specific variable names are used for demonstration purposes only, and an implementation is not required to have them, so long as its external behavior is consistent with that described in this document. Default values are specified to simplify configuration in common cases. I suggest to add a few words of clarification and turn this into: NEW: A router MUST allow for the following conceptual variables to be configured by system management. The specific variable names are used for demonstration purposes only, and an implementation is not required to have them, so long as its external behavior is consistent with that described in this document, and the functions described by the conceptual variables are configurable by some external management interface. Default values are specified to simplify configuration in common cases.
David Kessens Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
(was Discuss, Yes)
No Objection
No Objection
(2006-11-30)
Unknown
While we address Thomas' comments, we should also look into Donald Estlake's and Ralph Droms' reviews and how to address them.
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2006-11-30)
Unknown
Nit in Appendix F o Clarified that inconsistency checks for CurHopLimit are done for none zero values only. should be "non-zero", most likely.
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ross Callon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Sam Hartman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown