Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-16: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-16 CC @ekline * comment syntax: - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md * "Handling Ballot Positions": - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ * Thanks to Dave Thaler for the INT-DIR review. ## Comments ### S5.1.2.2, S8.2.4 * Super-nit-y, but RFC 5952 S4.3 indicates lowercase (ff02:...). ### S6.4.3 * "MUST respond to ND Neighbor Solicitation message" I think it might be helpful to reiterate here that the (R)outer Flag MUST be set in these messages (similar to the text in S6.4.1). ## Nits ### S1.4 * "will normally take more than 10 seconds to learn the default routers on a LAN" I found this wording to be misleading. Hosts regularly learn default routers as soon as they join the network. I think this text might actually mean something more like: "to learn *about a change in* the default routers on a LAN" and/or (possibly) "to learn *all* the default routers on a LAN". I see that 5798 had somewhat similarly worded text, so no strong feelings about changing this; just for your consideration. ### S5.1.1.3, S5.1.2.3, S7.1, S9 * Up to you, but RFC 5082 might be cite-able here, if it helps anything. ### S5.2.5 * "is ignored" -> "MUST be ignored", in order to use standards terminology? ### S6.4.3 * "the primary IPvX Address of the sender is greater than the local primary IPvX Address" I assume the comparison function implied here means "when IPvX addresses are treated as network-byte order unsigned integers"? ### S8.1.1 * Super nit-y, but you might consider: "running between a group of routers" -> "running among a group of routers" ### S8.3.2 * "Skew_Time is inversely proportional to the priority" Strictly speaking I think this isn't quite true (given the formula in S6.1, it's linear but with a negative coefficient?). But it's been a long, long time since I've had any proper maths course, so maybe ignore me. "Skew_Time decreases with increasing priority", perhaps. Or just leave it as is, since the figurative meaning is correct. ### S9 * If it helps, perhaps drop a reference to RFC 9099 S2.3, for some IPv6 link-layer security considerations discussion. _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
