Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-6man-mtu-option-12
review-ietf-6man-mtu-option-12-opsdir-lc-jiang-2022-02-08-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-6man-mtu-option
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 15)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2022-02-10
Requested 2022-01-27
Authors Bob Hinden , Gorry Fairhurst
I-D last updated 2022-02-08
Completed reviews Opsdir Last Call review of -12 by Sheng Jiang (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -12 by Paul Kyzivat (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -12 by Charlie Kaufman (diff)
Artart Last Call review of -13 by Dr. Bernard D. Aboba (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -12 by Olivier Bonaventure (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -13 by Sheng Jiang (diff)
Tsvart Telechat review of -13 by Olivier Bonaventure (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Sheng Jiang
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-6man-mtu-option by Ops Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/xzTB5ImQ1Ojz21cE6TnjYtIZd6E
Reviewed revision 12 (document currently at 15)
Result Ready
Completed 2022-02-08
review-ietf-6man-mtu-option-12-opsdir-lc-jiang-2022-02-08-00
I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments
were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF
drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD
reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments just like any other last call comments.

Document: draft-ietf-6man-mtu-option-12
Reviewer: Sheng Jiang
Review Date: 2022-02-09

This experimental document specifies a new mechanims to in-boundly discover the
minimum Path MTU along the forward path between a source host to a destination
host with a newly defined IPv6 Hop-by-Hop option that is used to record .  The
document is well-writen and reader-friendly. It clearly defines the behaviours
on each devices with different roles. This document also have a special section
9 to explain the "experiment goals" of this specification.

However, personally, I still not fully understand why this document are
intending for "experimental" and what would be the experiment range. It seems
for me this mechanism are good enough to be a proposed standard to persuade
people use it widely. If by deploying it, issues are found or refining are
needed. We can always update it as normal IETF procedure.

Summary: Ready

Major Concerns:

None.

Minor Concerns:

None.

Regards,

Sheng