Some late comments about draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2292bis-04.txt:
- 0: is it time to alias sin6_scope_id to sin6_zone_id (far better name
but not suitable for the basic API)?
- 2.1.1: IPPROTO_IPCOMP (108, RFC 3173) is missing (as usual :-).
- 2.2.2: ND_RA_FLAG_HA (for Mobile IPv6) is missing
(note: only some Mobile IPv6 features are enough stable to be added
today in the advanced API, another way is to mandate the definitions
for the API in Mobile IPv6 (and other) documents)
- 2.2.2: draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-name-lookups-08.txt ???
(same issue but the document should be published soon and
it is too late to add definitions)
- 2.4: IPComp again...
- 6.1: IPV6_PKTINFO/IPV6_MULTICAST_IF precedence is defined but
there is nothing about sin6_scope_id (IMHO the behavior should be:
raise an error if the interface is not in the zone, i.e. interface
specification is a more accurate specification).
6.2 tries to explain but is not enough clear/formal about this point
and misses the fact that the issue can be for both sin6_scope_id of
the source (bind()) and destination (connect/send*()) socket addresses.
- 6.2: why IPV6_PKTINFO is not simply forbidden for TCP (i.e. raise
an error in place of ignore)?
+ 6.3: good explanation of IPV6_HOPLIMIT vs. basic API stuff!
- 6.5: are some definitions of well known values useful?
(IMHO this is the job of DiffServ WG to answer)
- 9.2: this text should make clear the assumption of RFC 2460 recommended
ordering is abusive. I propose to remove IPV6_RTHDRDSTOPTS which
has no current use too, so we can get the same kind of text than
for routing headers (known limitations, possibility for clever kernels
(i.e. a kernel which knows that a tunnel encapsulation limit must be
before the fragmentation header when a packet with a TEL is fragmented)).
- 11.2: I share Vladislav's concerns (the MTU stuff is a bit too complex)
- 11.4: there is a discussion about MTUs and extra headers added by
the kernel (Mobile IPv6 options). IMHO the MTU is an IP MTU so should
not take into account the headers. But this makes it less useful
for the programmer... (note: this is just a philosophical question
for the 2292ter)
- 11.5: is IPV6_REACHCONF really useful (example)?
- 12: see 9.2
Regards
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
