Brian,
Thanks for the review. I will spin a new version of the draft addressing all of
these comments.
I will spin a new version of the draft addressing all of these comments.
Ron
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Haberman [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 12:55 PM
> To: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-intarea-gre-mtu
>
> All,
> I have completed my AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-intarea-gre-mtu as a part
> of the publication process. I only have a few minor comments for the
> authors to address. Once that is done, I will start the IETF Last Call.
>
> * Section 1 - The 4th paragraph specifies that the techniques described in
> this
> document are limited on what protocols can be in the GRE payload, but
> doesn't say anything about the delivery protocol. The Terminology section
> indicates only v4 and v6 are applicable as the delivery protocol discussed in
> this document. I think it would be useful to expand the 4th paragraph of the
> intro to mention the limit on the delivery protocol.
>
> * Section 1.1
>
> - s/specific MTU discovery/specific to MTU discovery/
>
> - The definition of "fragmentable packet" should include mention of IPv6
>
> - The definition of PTB should be consistent and indicate that IPv6 uses
> ICMPv6 Type=2 for PTB messages.
>
> * Section 2.2 - I would suggest clarifying the first bullet by saying that the
> fragmentation logic is derived from the payload protocol.
>
> Regards,
> Brian
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
