Subject: two minor modifications before the SEND draft becomes an RFC...

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 22:20:07 +0200

Brett, the rest of the SEND WG,

We are in the last stages of RFC editing for the
SEND main draft. As a part of this the RFC editor
is doing a number of editorial modifications, we
are checking things one more time, and we also take
into account if something has come up in the meantime.

There's two semi-technical things that came up after the
draft was at the IESG. These came from Brett's review,
described in more detail at [1]. The first issue is in
text that talks about rate limitation in base ND, and
we were making a slightly incorrect statement. This
needs to be fixed as follows in Section 5.2.4:

OLD:
    A large number of router solicitations may cause a higher demand
    for performing asymmetric operations, although the base NDP protocol
    limits the rate at which responses to solicitations can be sent.
NEW:
    A large number of router solicitations may cause a higher demand
    for performing asymmetric operations, although the base NDP protocol
    limits the rate at which multicast responses to solicitations
    can be sent.

The second issue is a duplicated requirement in Section 8.
We already have a MUST that requires a secure/insecure flag
to be kept in different ND entries. An extra SHOULD appears
shortly after that with the same requirement. This needs
to be deleted as follows:

OLD:
    The Neighbor Cache SHOULD implement a flag on entries indicating
    whether the entry is secured.
NEW:
    (Deleted)

This issue was briefly discussed when Brett brought it up
on the list, although with slightly differently formulated
text. I think the changes and the new text are straightforward.
But if you spot a problem please let us know as soon as possible.
I'd like to send a modification to the RFC editor by, say,
Wednesday evening.

Thanks,

Jari

[1] http://www.arkko.com/publications/send/issues/issue100.txt

--------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, send email with "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the
body to <[email-masked]>.
Archive: http://standards.ericsson.net/lists/ietf-send/maillist.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Brett Pentland <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 20:37:09 +1100

Hi Jari,

>    limits the rate at which multicast responses to solicitations
This text looks good, but it still leaves the statement in the next 
paragraph that states, "Typically, solicited advertisements are sent to 
the unicast address from which the solicitation was sent".  This is 
contrary to the text in section 6.2.6 of RFC2461 with respect to router 
solicitations which states, "A router MAY choose to unicast the response 
directly to the soliciting host's address (if the solicitation's source 
address is not the unspecified address), but the usual case is to 
multicast the response to the all-nodes group."

A simple fix would be to replace the offending sentence with:

"Typically, solicited neighbor advertisements are sent to the unicast 
address from which the solicitation was sent".

>    whether the entry is secured.

Looks fine.

Cheers,
Brett.

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 13:26:16 +0200

Hi Brett, and thanks for your prompt answer!

> address from which the solicitation was sent".

Ok. Thanks.

--Jari