Skip to main content

IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-6man-icmpv6-reflection-12
review-ietf-6man-icmpv6-reflection-12-opsdir-lc-comstedt-2025-11-05-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-6man-icmpv6-reflection
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 19)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2025-10-26
Requested 2025-10-14
Requested by Mohamed Boucadair
Authors Tal Mizrahi , hexiaoming , Tianran Zhou , Ron Bonica , Xiao Min
I-D last updated 2026-01-05 (Latest revision 2025-12-15)
Completed reviews Genart IETF Last Call review of -12 by Thomas Fossati (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -11 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -12 by Niclas Comstedt (diff)
Tsvart IETF Last Call review of -11 by Kyle Rose (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -12 by Suresh Krishnan (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Niclas Comstedt
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-6man-icmpv6-reflection by Ops Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/6iWBuOo_Q9e-TrWKlohp-fSFz48
Reviewed revision 12 (document currently at 19)
Result Has nits
Completed 2025-11-05
review-ietf-6man-icmpv6-reflection-12-opsdir-lc-comstedt-2025-11-05-00
Hi,

I have been selected as the Operational Directorate (opsdir) reviewer for this
Internet-Draft.

The Operational Directorate reviews all operational and management-related
Internet-Drafts to ensure alignment with operational best practices and that
adequate operational considerations are covered.

A complete set of _"Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management in
IETF Specifications"_ can be found at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-opsarea-rfc5706bis/.

While these comments are primarily for the Operations and Management Area
Directors (Ops ADs), the authors should consider them alongside other feedback
received.

Summary: Overall this makes sense and seems fine to me. There are a couple of
minor nits or things I think could be clarified.

It's a little unclear if the intent is to say 'middle boxes MUST NOT' modify
the Reflect All message. In the beginning (end of #1) it says middles boxes are
not intended while later (#4 before the picture) it says 'must not modify'. I
assume this should be 'MUST NOT' consistently?

Is the intent of Reflect All to include all headers only (as the picture
implies) or all headers and potentially more of the original request object as
some of the language implies? I don't see a major issue with either but think
this could be clearer and more consistent.

Regards,
    Niclas