Last Call Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08
review-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08-rtgdir-lc-dimitri-2017-03-02-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 13)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2017-03-01
Requested 2017-02-10
Requested by Alvaro Retana
Other Reviews Intdir Early review of -08 by Bob Halley (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -08 by Peter Yee (diff)
Tsvart Telechat review of -09 by Martin Stiemerling (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -09 by Hilarie Orman (diff)
Opsdir Early review of -09 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Papadimitriou Dimitri
Review review-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08-rtgdir-lc-dimitri-2017-03-02
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/MxU46zUTIR2E6ZW1lheE1tc8OcQ
Reviewed rev. 08 (document currently at 13)
Review result Has Issues
Draft last updated 2017-03-02
Review closed: 2017-03-02

Review
review-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08-rtgdir-lc-dimitri-2017-03-02

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt
Reviewer: Dimitri Papadimitriou 
Review Date: 01-03-2017
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:

I have some minor comments about this document that I think might have to be resolved before publication.

Major Issues: 

No major issues found.

Minor Issues:

Section 4.4: processing of the "segment left" field is left undocumented (shouldn't it be decremented after being processed ?)

Section 4.5: "If insufficient fragments are received to complete reassembly" does "insufficient" means the last fragment ?

Section 4.8: states "New hop-by-hop options are not recommended because nodes may be configured to ignore the Hop-by-Hop Option header, drop packets containing a hop-by-hop header" does this configuration change because options are new or old ? there seems to be confusion here between "new vs. existing" options and "intermediate nodes MAY be configured to ignore/drop packets with these options included". 

Section 8.3: one would have expected a self-consistent formula to determine the max.payload size instead of a relative comparison to IPv4

Section 8.4: automatically reversed or not, this section doesn't state if the response (understood here that the option type is recognized) is to be sent to the source address (directly) or the last entry from the record route for instance (cf. Section 4.4).

Editorials:

p2. s/Internet Protocol/Internet Protocol (IP)

Section 2 defines link for link MTU but doesn't define path for path MTU

p14. s/a source node know/a source node knows

-----