All,
I have completed my AD evaluation for
draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain. I found the document to be
concise and well-written. Thank you.
I only have a few things I would like to see addressed prior to
starting an IETF Last Call on this document.
1. The 2nd paragraph of Section 4 (Motivation) could be made more clear.
For example, you could indicate if the example first fragment does or
does not match the stateless firewall rule. It is inferred that the
first fragment does not match the target TCP port since it was dropped,
but I like to err on the explicit side. As an aside, wouldn't the
subsequent fragments be dropped as well or does the IP destination match
the forward rule?
2. I would like to get some clarification on the rule in section 5 that
says "A host that receives a first-fragment that does not satisfy the
above-stated requirement SHOULD discard that packet". Can you provide
some justification for the SHOULD when you made it a MUST for a sending
node to ensure the upper-layer header is in the first fragment? Are you
assuming some flexibility to support compatibility with older stacks?
If so, it would be good to have some guidance on what those stack
vendors should do.
3. Why is sending an ICMP error message a MAY?
4. It would be better to be explicit that a host sending an ICMP error
message is sending the same ICMP error specified for routers/middleboxes.
5. I would suggest adding a reference to 2460 for the 1280 minimum MTU
value.
Regards,
Brian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
