Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-06
review-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-06-rtgdir-lc-robles-2017-04-21-01

Request Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2017-03-01
Requested 2017-02-10
Requested by Alvaro Retana
Authors Jack McCann <>, Stephen E. Deering <>, Jeffrey Mogul <>, Bob Hinden
Draft last updated 2017-05-05
Completed reviews Intdir Early review of -03 by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Rifaat Shekh-Yusef (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -04 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Susan Hares (diff)
Tsvart Telechat review of -04 by Dr. Joseph D. Touch (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -06 by Ines Robles (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -06 by Rifaat Shekh-Yusef (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -06 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Ines Robles
State Completed
Review review-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-06-rtgdir-lc-robles-2017-04-21
Reviewed revision 06 (document currently at 08)
Result Has Nits
Completed 2017-05-05
review-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-06-rtgdir-lc-robles-2017-04-21-01
Hi,

Please find my review for "Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6
(draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-06) I-D:

Document: draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-06.txt

Reviewer: Ines Robles

Review Date: April 21, 2017

Intended status: Standards Track

Summary:

 I believe the draft is technically good. I have no “Major” issues with this
 I-D. I have some minor comments.

Comments:

1- I think that It would be nice to add a graphical example that describes the
process of the Path MTU Discovery (including a Packet Too Big Message). e.g.
Figure 1 of RFC 5927[1].

2- Section 1:

        2.1- I would add a reference when you mention black hole connection.
        What about section 2.1 of [2] or [3]?

3- Section 2:

        3.1- EMTU_S => When it is defined, it references RFC6691. But this term
        is not mentioned in RFC6691. I would add additionally a reference to
        RFC 1122 [4] which defines EMTU_S.

        3.2- I would add the same references for EMTU_R as well.

4.Section 3:

        4.1- In the first paragraph, I would add a reference to ICMPv6 the
        first time that ICMPv6 Packet Too Big message is mentioned. And I would
        add here also "(ICMPv6 PTB)" since it used further in the document.

        4.2- In the first paragraph, about this: "...to send smaller fragments
        or ..." --> I think it would be clearer "to send smaller packets or..."

        4.3- Second Paragraph: "...process ends when the node's estimate..." ->
        "...process ends when the source node's estimate..."?

        4.4- Last Paragraph: "can to appear" -> "can appear" . "...but is in
        fact..." -> "...but it is in fact..."

5. Section 4:

        4.1- about this: "The node MUST reduce the size of the packets it is
        sending along the path". I would add an explanation to which size the
        packet should be reduced (maybe based in an initial example)

6.Section 5:

        6.1- I would add a reference to RFC 1122 [4] when MMS_S is mentioned.

        6.2- Section 5.5: "Some transport protocols are not allowed to
        repacketize when doing a retransmission..." I would add some examples.

7. Section 6:

        7.1- What about to mention Blind Performance-Degrading Attack [5]

Thanks,

Ines.

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5927#section-7.3
[2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2923
[3] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jacquin-opsawg-icmp-blackhole-problem-00
[4] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1122#page-58
[5] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5927#section-7