IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-intarea-extended-icmp-nodeid-06
review-ietf-intarea-extended-icmp-nodeid-06-intdir-lc-krishnan-2026-10-02-00

I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer fordraft-ietf-6man-icmpv6-reflection.
These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area
Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just
like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve
them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more
details on the INT Directorate, see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/

I found the document well written and easy to read. I do see some issues that
would need to be addressed before this document is published.

* Multiple Node Identification Objects (allowed or not?)

The draft does not specify whether multiple Node Identification Objects are
allowed in a packet. Given that a source node can add a Node Identification
Object and a translator can also potentially add one based on text in this
section, this needs to be explicitly stated along with ordering and potential
receiver behaviors.

* Checksum update on translators

Section 4 states that "If an ICMP Extension Structure is already present in the
packet being translated, this Extension Object is added to the existing ICMP
Extension Structure and the checksum is updated.". The phrase "the checksum" is
ambiguous because there are two checksum fields in the packet, the ICMP
checksum and the RFC4884 ICMP Extension checksum. I think both of these need to
be updated. If you agree, please update the text to clarify this.

* Section 3

I have a hard time seeing this text as representing a MUST. Isn't this simply a
restatement of the conditions for a SHOULD?

"MUST be added whenever the responding IP address may not be sufficient to
identify the node, unless local policy or security considerations supersede
this requirement."

Thanks
Suresh