Paul, thank you for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot for this document.
Lars On 2022-2-4, at 19:54, Paul Kyzivat <[email protected]> wrote: > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-6man-mtu-option-12 > Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat > Review Date: 2022-02-04 > IETF LC End Date: 2022-02-10 > IESG Telechat date: ?? > > Summary: > > This draft is ready for publication as an Experimental RFC. > > Comments and Questions: > > I didn't attempt to evaluate the security considerations as it is totally > outside my scope. I trust this will be dealt with by a security review. > > I have the following questions about the draft. (I don't think they even rise > to the level of nits.) > > 1) Regarding PMTU range in section 5: > > Was any consideration given to supporting PMTUs greater than 2^16? > > 2) Regarding multiplexing of Rtn-PMTU and R-Flag in section 5: > > Min-PMTU is permitted to be odd, but Rtn-PMTU is forced to be even to allow > room for the R-Flag. Hence, if the Min-PMTU ends up odd, then it will be > rounded down in Rtn-PMTU. > > Why not restrict Min-PMTU to be even as well? This would provide consistency > and make clear that MTUs need to be even? This could be done by reducing > Min-PMTU to 15 bits, adding a 1-bit reserved field, and a few explanatory > words to the text. > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
