Hi Tim, Thanks for your detailed review. I have some questions and comments on your comments. The rest of your comments were clear.
> On Mar 2, 2023, at 9:03 AM, Tim Chown via Datatracker <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Reviewer: Tim Chown > Review result: Has Nits > > Hi, > > This draft is not yet submitted to the IESG. Comments and reviews were > solicited before taking the document further. > > This draft is an update to RFC 5798, VRRP v3 for IPv4 and IPv6. It changes > terminology to be more inclusive, applies errata, makes a small number of > technical changes, and extends the security considerations. > > Overall, the draft seems to be progressing well as an update, and I would > encourage the authors to continue that process, while also taking on board the > comments below, some of which are general or open but others more specific. I > would say it’s Ready with Nits. > > The document remains well-written, with an easy to read style. > > Comments: > > Abstract and first para of Introduction: > The second sentence should reflect that 5798 is now in the past. It can > mention 3768 but that’s now a previous version. The fact that this document obsoletes RFC 5798 is in the abstract and intro. RFC 3798 still is the definitive reference for VRRPv2. I don’t think any update is needed here. > > Section 1.4: > > “Hosts will learn the default routers in a few minutes” - in practice it is > faster as hosts will send an RS when their interface comes up? > > Is it really 38 seconds to determine a router is unreachable? RFC 7048 > suggests it’s 3 seconds, and that that is (by the title) too impatient? > > Are router preferences relevant here as per RFC 4191? I really don’t want to get into a precise IPv6 ND specification in this document. How about if I update both of these to say “can take 10s of seconds”? > > Section 1.7: > > Maybe add VR ID to the definitions > > Section 4.2: > > Should H3 and H4 here have IPvX B rather than A? > > Section 7.4: > > I think 2464 should be replaced by RFC 7217? If so, maybe mention that the > Net > Interface element of the algorithm should maybe be the virtual MAC not the > physical one? I don’t think I have to replace RFC 2464 since RFC 7217 doesn’t even update it. I could add it but I think we want to use the physical MAC consistent with the RFC 2464 recommendation. > > Section 11: > > Should the protocol number registry be added here, where VRRP is 112 and cited > as RFC 5798? I agree but the IANA registry should be updated to this document since it obsoletes RFC 5798. > > Finally, I did stumble across some comments in section 7 of RFC 6527 while > reading around the topic, on ambiguities for multi-stack VRRP operation. > Should > this draft bring those into scope, or leave them out? If the latter, perhaps > state this in the document. I believe RFC 6527 is wrong. IPv4 and IPv6 virtual routers are always treated as separate logical instances. Note that the abstract says: "Within a VRRP router, the virtual routers in each of the IPv4 and IPv6 address families are independent of one another.” Note that “routers” is plural. I’d disagree with any other interpretation. Thanks, Acee > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
