Fernando, Fully agree with your first change. Just for the pleasure chatting: BGP is indeed an app while ICMP is the control part of the network layer, let's reserve a beer to discuss about this.
Regarding the 'IPv6 header chain', indeed RFC 2460 does not define 'chain' but specifically write about 'IPv6 extension headers' as w/o upper-layer protocol, hence, 'IPv6 header chain' could be confusing. I.e. I am using this wording to address the extension header chain (ellipsis of mine). Your I-D clearly defines it so no big deal, just slightly confusing. I would prefer the word 'IPv6 header chain + next-layer header' but this is quite long of course. -éric > -----Original Message----- > From: Fernando Gont [mailto:fg...@si6networks.com] > Sent: mardi 17 juillet 2012 15:15 > To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) > Cc: ipv6@ietf.org > Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-01.txt > > Hi, Eric, > > Thanks so much for your feedback! -- Please find my comments inline... > On 07/17/2012 07:35 AM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: > > As I said in Paris, very useful I-D which is really important for > stateless firewalls (read switch ACL). > > > > Two minor comments: > > - section 2.0 I would also explicitly add ICMP in addition to UDP & > > TCP > > How about e.g. s/UDP/ICMPv6/, since, after all, "UDP" was just there as an > example? (I'd prefer to do this rather to add yet another protocol, since it > might lead people to think that the list is exhaustive.. when it's not). > > > > (as ICMP is not really an upper-layer protocol as it is the control > > engine of the network layer) > > From the point of view of encapsulation, I view ICMP as an upper layer > protocol -- although it clearly provides a function at lower layers. > > A similar example would be BGP, which is an "app" protocol, but provides > functions for the network layer. > > > > - not sure whether an upper-layer header could strictly be part on the > > IPv6 extension header chain (at least not per RFC 2460) > > Well, I'd consider the upper-layer header being part of the "ipv6 header > chain" (*) since they are identified with the same namespace used for > extension headers. > > (*) I've just skimmed through RFC 2460, and it doesn't mention/define the > term "header chain". > > > Two possible options: > 1) Leave the doc "as is" > > 2) s/IPv6 header chain/header chain/ > This one might address the issue you've raised, but then some might argue > that "the entire header chain could also mean that e.g. an app-layer header > should be included". > > > I'd rather stick with 1, but I'm certainly open to suggestions. Thoughts? > > > > > Even as the I-D is, it is ready for WGLC IMHO > > Thanks! > > Best regards, > -- > Fernando Gont > SI6 Networks > e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com > PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
