Skip to main content

Support for Adjustable Maximum Router Lifetimes per Link
RFC 8319

Yes

(Terry Manderson)

No Objection

Alvaro Retana
(Alexey Melnikov)
(Alia Atlas)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Benoît Claise)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Kathleen Moriarty)

Recuse


Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

Alvaro Retana No Objection

Warren Kumari No Objection

Comment (2017-10-24 for -03)
I like what the document does, but it could really really do with a good editing pass; I've sent some nits / comments to Suresh off-list.
Some bits I was unable to parse, but I trust Suresh to fix them. 

I'm a bit surprised it doesn't mention RFC7772 - it feels very related to me, but I may just be wrong!

(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -03)

                            

(Adam Roach; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2017-11-29)
Thanks for addressing my discuss and comment. I find the formulation in the document being updated problematic, but you've done a deft job of not repeating the error in this document.

(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2017-11-29)
Editorial Comments:

- Abstract: Please mention the fact this updates 4861 in the abstract.

- Given that there are at least a few "should" and "must" instances in lower case, please consider using the boilerplate from 8174 rather than 2119.

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Eric Rescorla; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2017-10-17 for -03)
I'm just testing something, and wanted to get a protocol trace. Will look at draft later.

(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2017-10-16 for -03)
Just one quick question to double-check: Are the defaut values in RFC4861 still recommended or not? Maybe note this in the text to avoid any confusion!

Also, as already noted in the sphepherd write-up, the abstract should mention the update.

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2017-11-30)
Everyone likely knows this, but is it worth adding a suggestion to retry rejected RAs with a Router Lifetime of more than 9000 seconds, with a new RA that uses 9000 seconds?

5.  Host Behavior

   Legacy hosts on a link with updated routers may have issues with a
   Router Lifetime of more than 9000 seconds.  In the few
   implementations we have tested with general purpose operating
   systems, there does not seem to be any issues with setting this field
   to more than 9000, but there might be implementations that
   incorrectly (since RFC4861 requires receivers to handle any value)
   reject such RAs.

I think this meshes with Mirja's suggestion to state whether 9000 is still the default ...

(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) Recuse

Recuse (2017-10-23 for -03)
I am an author.