Dear Authors, I am the document shepherd of draft-ietf-intarea-rfc8335bis.
Review summary: the draft is clear and well-written. It is almost ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication. Next step: the authors are welcome to submit an updated version that addresses the comments below along with the comments from working group last call. Comments: - Please make sure to address and reply to the comments sent in WG last call. - The document does not discuss the MTU, and whether the optional data can be large enough to cause the packet to exceed the MTU. It would be best to specify that the Extended Echo Request/Reply packets SHOULD NOT exceed the MTU. - The security considerations should be extended to include missing aspects such as amplification, covert channels, malicious modifications. Please see the Security Considerations section of draft-ietf-6man-icmpv6-reflection, which was significantly affected by the Security AD reviews. - Please note that this document and draft-ietf-6man-icmpv6-reflection will most probably be published as a cluster. It would be very helpful for the readers to have an explicit reference to the reflection draft, specifically the sentence "The behavior when it contains a different Extension Object is not defined by this memo but may be defined in the future." should be rephrased to mention draft-ietf-6man-icmpv6-reflection as an example of such a case. A side note that does not necessarily need to be reflected in the document: - Please specify in response to this email whether there are any implementations of this utility. Cheers, Tal. _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
