Hi Erik, Thanks for your review. I’ve addressed your comments in the -17 version.
> On Jan 2, 2024, at 9:05 PM, Erik Kline via Datatracker <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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:...). Fixed. > > ### 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). Added. > > ## 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. Actually I softened this once based on feedback. It used to say 38 seconds. I’ve softened the statement again by replacing “will normally” with “can”. > > ### 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. Added. Except in section 7.1. > > ### S5.2.5 > > * "is ignored" -> "MUST be ignored", in order to use standards terminology? Changed. > > ### 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"? Yes. I’ve clarified (of course, there are many protocol documents where this is implied). > > ### S8.1.1 > > * Super nit-y, but you might consider: > > "running between a group of routers" -> > "running among a group of routers" I agree - this is clearer. > > ### 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. You are correct. It would certainly be incorrect to use the mathematical symbol for inversely proportional. > > ### S9 > > * If it helps, perhaps drop a reference to RFC 9099 S2.3, for some IPv6 > link-layer security considerations discussion. Added. Hopefully, it is ok to say “RECOMMENDED” for guidance in an informational document. Coincidently, I did the Routing Directorate review on this document. Unfortunately, this adds an IDNIT warning for the acute accents on Eric. Thanks, Acee > > > _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
