Early Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-09
review-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-09-opsdir-early-dunbar-2017-04-21-00

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 primarily for the benefit of the operational area
directors.

Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other
last call comments.

I think the document is written very clear, except one issue:

Section 4 (page 7) states that (with one exception) extension headers are not
examined by any node along the path because fragmentation may cause some
fragments not having the complete headers (as described in the RFC7045).

But Section 4.4’s routing header is to indicate a list of intermediate nodes to
be “visited”.

Does it mean intermediate nodes need to process the “routing header”?

In Section 4.5 (Fragment Header), I can’t find description on if each fragment
should carry the entire Routing Header. If not, the intermediate nodes can’t
guarantee all the intermediate nodes specified by the Routing headers will be
“visited” by all fragments.

Linda Dunbar

Huawei USA IP Technology Lab

5340 Legacy Drive,

Plano, TX 75024

Tel: +1 469-277 - 5840

Fax: +1 469 -277 - 5900