Thanks for your entirely sensible answers, Tal. I'm looking froward to updating the review with the next version of the docuemnt.
cheers! On Sun, 19 Oct 2025 at 07:35, Tal Mizrahi <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Thomas, > > Many thanks for the comments. Please see inline, marked [TM]. > > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 12:46 PM Thomas Fossati via Datatracker > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Document: draft-ietf-6man-icmpv6-reflection > > Title: Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) Reflection > > Reviewer: Thomas Fossati > > Review result: Ready with Issues > > > > 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://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>. > > > > Document: draft-ietf-6man-icmpv6-reflection-11 > > Reviewer: Thomas Fossati > > Review Date: 2025-10-15 > > IETF LC End Date: 2025-10-26 > > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > > > Summary: > > > > This document is well-written and explains how the ICMPv6 Reflection utility > > works. Thank you, editors and 6man WG. > > > > Major issues: > > > > Unless I am wrong, the IANA requests made in Figure 2 [1] don't match the > > referenced registry structure [2]. > > > > [1] > > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-6man-icmpv6-reflection-11.html#figure-2 > > [2] > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmp-parameters/icmp-parameters.xhtml#icmp-parameters-ext-classes > > [TM] Right, that is a good catch. It will be fixed in the next version > of the draft. > > > > > This should be easy to fix. (As an example, see [3].) > > > > [3] > > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-intarea-extended-icmp-nodeid-04.html#section-6 > > > > Minor issues: > > > > The ICMPv6 Reflection utility is defined as an "[IPv6] diagnostic tool". > > Is there any implementation of such utility? > > If there is, please list it as specified in BCP 205. > > I read the relevant section of the Shepherd's write-up, but I couldn't find > > a > > completely clear answer. Since this is a Standards Track document, it is > > important that the existance of implementations is documented. > > [TM] The shepherd writeup provides a good summary of the status: > "There is a prototype for the ICMP Loopback draft > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mcb-6man-icmpv6-loopback-01), > which evolved into this draft: https://github.com/talmi/IOAM-Ping-Demo"; > > Since there is no up-to-date prototype that implements the current > version of the document, the current document does not describe it. > > > > > > Nits/editorial comments: > > > > I'm not sure what this means: > > > > "The main body of the ICMPv6 Extended Echo Reply message reflects the > > status of > > an interface on the probed node." > > > > It doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the paragraph. > > This text is based on the following text from draft-ietf-intarea-rfc8335bis: > "...used to query the status of a probed interface" > > Therefore, the following clarification will be applied to the current > document: > > OLD: > The main body of the ICMPv6 Extended Echo Reply message reflects the status of > an interface on the probed node. > NEW: > The main body of the ICMPv6 Extended Echo Reply message, as in > [I-D.ietf-intarea-rfc8335bis], reflects the status of an interface on > the probed node. > > > Cheers, > Tal. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
