Folks,
A few more comments on the draft:
* While I don't expect the draft to list every possible use of the
extensions, it might be good to add the motivation for these
extensions. (a couple of lines, or a short paragraph)
* In several parts the draft talks about ICMP types, and includes in
the same list "destination unreachable, parameter problem, etc.".
However, "parameter problem" (and others) are *codes* of the same
type ("destination unreachable"). This should be fixed.
* The header in Figure 1 includes a "Next-Hop MTU" field. However,
this field is included only in "frag needed and DF bit set", but not
for the other message codes.
* Page 5, section 4:
" RFC 1191 [4] adds a "Next-Hop MTU" field to the Destination
Unreachable message."
As explained in the previous bullet, RFC 1191 modifies only "frag
needed and DF bit set"
* It might be a good idea to include the numerical type/codes for
each of the messages, along with their "name".
Kindest regards,
--
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] || [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
