Fernando,
Please see inline.
On 9/26/2006 6:08 PM, Fernando Gont allegedly said the following:
> 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 only instance I found is:
An ICMP Extension Structure MAY be appended to ICMPv4 Destination
Unreachable, Time Exceeded, and Parameter Problem messages.
Are you referring to this one?
In any case, "Parameter problem" is ICMP Type 12 [RFC792] and a new code
(for this type) from [RFC1122], "Time Exceeded" is Type 11, and
"Destination Unreachable" is ICMP Type 3 (with >~ 13 codes).
>
> * 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.
Yes; this is introduced in rev -07, since the text after figure 1 in -06 is:
The syntax and semantics of all fields are unchanged from RFC 792 and
RFC 1191. However, a length attribute is added to the second word.
It should be fixed (as it was before, or somesuch adding that "Next-Hop
MTU" is only for "fragmentation needed and DF set")
Note that the underlying intent of the figure is to show the worst case
(for the type among all codes) field-usage-wise to place the length
field at a common offset.
>
> * 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"
Agreed. How about?
RFC 1191 [4] adds a "Next-Hop MTU" field to the Destination
Unreachable message with code indicating "fragmentation needed and DF
set".
Thanks,
--Carlos.
>
> * 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
>
--
--Carlos Pignataro.
Escalation RTP - cisco Systems
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
