Also, the contents of 2.2.3 are covered by the following text from rfc 2460bis:
"If the first fragment does not include all headers through an
Upper-Layer header, then that fragment should be discarded and
an ICMP Parameter Problem, Code 3, message should be sent to
the source of the fragment, with the Pointer field set to zero."
Maybe you can drop Section 2.2.3 and replace it with a pointer to RFC2460bis?
Ron
From: Ron Bonica
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 4:03 PM
To: 'Gunter Van De Velde' <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: RE: [OPSEC] WGLC for draft-ietf-opsec-v6
Hi Gunter,
I support publication of this draft, but see a small problem in Section 2.2.2.
In Section 2.2.2, the authors reference "ietf-6man-hbh-header-handling". This
draft has been allowed to die on the vine, but artifacts can be seen in the
following text from RFC2460bis.
" NOTE: While [RFC2460<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2460>] required that all
nodes must examine and
process the Hop-by-Hop Options header, it is now expected that nodes
along a packet's delivery path only examine and process the Hop-by-
Hop Options header if explicitly configured to do so."
You might want to update the draft with this change to 2460 in mind.
Ron
From: OPSEC [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gunter Van De Velde
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 3:39 AM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: [OPSEC] WGLC for draft-ietf-opsec-v6
This is to open a two week WGLC for
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsec-v6.
If you have not read it, please do so now. You may send nits to the author, but
substantive discussion should go to the list.
I will close the call on 26 April 2017
G/
Sent from iCloud
_______________________________________________
OPSEC mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
