Hi Joel,
Thanks for the review. I see no problem with making the suggested
change on length handling to clarify behavior.
Regards,
Brian
Joel M. Halpern wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft
IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option
(for background on Gen-ART, please
seehttp://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-ipv6-ra-flags-option-01.txt
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
Review Date: 19-August-2007
IETF LC End Date: 2007-08-31
IESG Telechat date: (if known) 2007-09-06
Summary:
This document is ready for publication as a proposed standard.
I would change the length handling text a bit if I were writing it, so I
have included that suggestion as part of my comments.
There is a good chance that in this particular case all of my comments
below are too picky, but they are provided for the information of the
general area chair.
Comments:
As a general observation, it is usually a bad idea for chairs to be
authors of documents in their working group. If we really don't have
enough active participants in the IPv6 working group to get someone else
to write this, we have a much larger problem.
The document says that the length of the option is 1. This is in
multiples of 8 octets, so there is lots of room.
However, the text explicitly says that the length should be checked in
case of future expansion. But it does not specify what to do if the
length is not 1.
I would recommend that the text explicitly allow for lengths greater
than 1, and simply indicate that bits past those understood by the
receiver are too be ignored. There could probably also be a sentence
indicating that since bits are to be defined in order, this allows a
receiver to properly recognize the bits it understands.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
