Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)
RFC 4861

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 11 and is now closed.

(Margaret Cullen) Yes

(Lars Eggert) Yes

Comment (2006-11-28 for -)
No email
send info
Section 6.2.1., paragraph 12:
>                      Default: 0.33 * MaxRtrAdvInterval

  The default MinRtrAdvInterval can only be calculated according to this
  formula if MaxRtrAdvInterval >= 9 seconds, because otherwise
  (MaxRtrAdvInterval can be as low as 4 seconds) it becomes less than
  the minimum of 3 seconds.

(Jari Arkko) (was Discuss, Yes) No Objection

Comment (2006-11-30)
No email
send info
While we address Thomas' comments, we should
also look into Donald Estlake's and Ralph
Droms' reviews and how to address them.

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Brian Carpenter) No Objection

Comment (2006-11-23 for -)
No email
send info
Dialogue between Gen-ART reviewer (Scott Brim) and author:

 > 3.0 protocol overview
 > 
 >   - Duplicate address detection
 > 
 >      "Duplicate Address Detection: How a node determines that an
 >      address it wishes to use is not already in use by another node."
 > 
 >     should be
 > 
 >      "Duplicate Address Detection: How a node determines whether or
 >      not an address it wishes to use is already in use by another
 >      node."

=> ok.

 >       
 >   - Router advertisement: the phrase "on-link determination" has not
 >     appeared before.  It should be explained.

=> We can add a reference here.

 > 6.2.1 router config variables
 > 
 >   - AdvCurHopLimit
 > 
 >       "The value should be set to that current diameter of the
 >       Internet."
 > 
 >     s/that/the/

=> ok.

["Current diameter of the Internet" is an interesting concept - BC]

 > 8.2.  Router Specification
 ...
 >   - "In the Target Address field: the address to which subsequent
 >     packets for the destination SHOULD be sent."
 > 
 >     That's talking about the recipient of the redirect.  It's not
 >     about the sender's behavior, so this SHOULD should not be
 >     capitalized.

=> Hmm. That's true.

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

(Bill Fenner) No Objection

(Ted Hardie) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Sam Hartman) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

Comment (2006-11-30 for -)
No email
send info
Nit in Appendix F


    o Clarified that inconsistency checks for CurHopLimit are done for
      none zero values only.

should be "non-zero", most likely.

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

Comment (2006-11-23 for -)
No email
send info
I believe that the first and second sentence in the first paragraph of 6.2.1 may be interpreted as contradictory and be confusing:

OLD: 

   A router MUST allow for the following conceptual variables to be
   configured by system management.  The specific variable names are
   used for demonstration purposes only, and an implementation is not
   required to have them, so long as its external behavior is consistent
   with that described in this document.  Default values are specified
   to simplify configuration in common cases.

I suggest to add a few words of clarification and turn this into: 

NEW: 

   A router MUST allow for the following conceptual variables to be
   configured by system management.  The specific variable names are
   used for demonstration purposes only, and an implementation is not
   required to have them, so long as its external behavior is consistent
   with that described in this document, and the functions described
   by the conceptual variables are configurable by some external 
   management interface.  Default values are specified to simplify 
   configuration in common cases.

(Mark Townsley) No Objection

(Magnus Westerlund) No Objection