Jen: I’m sorry I missed responding to this email. Your rephrasing was fine by me. You are at the RFC editors, so you may just be editing the document a final time before publication.
Sue From: Jen Linkova <furr...@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2024 5:51 AM To: Susan Hares <sha...@ndzh.com> Cc: gen-art@ietf.org; draft-ietf-6man-pio-pflag....@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; last-c...@ietf.org Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-6man-pio-pflag-09 Hi Susan, Thanks a lot for your review, sorry for the delayed response! We've just submitted -10 which shall have your comments addresses. However I'd like to confirm with you two changes we made, to External (furr...@gmail.com<mailto:furr...@gmail.com>) Report This Email<https://protection.inkyphishfence.com/report?id=bmV0b3JnMTA1ODY5MTIvc2hhcmVzQG5kemguY29tL2Q0MGE3MjdjY2UxZjRhMDFkMWE5MWZiMmNiOTVhZTFlLzE3Mjc2ODk4NTYuMzY=#key=a902feb1d7cf78020516e65c97ac8a75> FAQ<https://www.godaddy.com/help/report-email-with-advanced-email-security-40813> GoDaddy Advanced Email Security, Powered by INKY<https://www.inky.com/protection-by-inky> Hi Susan, Thanks a lot for your review, sorry for the delayed response! We've just submitted -10 which shall have your comments addresses. However I'd like to confirm with you two changes we made, to make sure they address your concerns. See below. On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 8:34 AM Susan Hares via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org<mailto:nore...@ietf.org>> wrote: > Section 6.2 (Using Delegated Prefix(es)) could have a minor technical or > editorial issue. > The key point is that loops must be prevented by: > a) using the prefix for directly connected devices as if the prefix was > assigned by > Neighbor Discovery and Duplicate Address Detection. > b) If it receives a prefix, don't forward on the link unless > b-1) already assigned to downstream interface. > b-2) places a high metric discard route for prefix (often to loop back). > > The issue is how to define a downstream interface. This section does not > clearly define it. You are right, we use it as an intuitive term, when in the model 'client-server' the upstream interface is facing the server, and interfaces the client is extending the connectivity to are considered downstream. However in this particular section it's not important to use the word 'downstream' so we rephrase the text to avoid it. New version: "The host MUST NOT forward packets with destination addresses within a delegated prefix to the interface that it obtained the prefix on, as this will cause a routing loop. This problem will not occur if the host has assigned the prefix to another interface. Another way the host can prevent this problem is to add to its routing table a high-metric discard route for the delegated prefix. " Does the new text address your concern? Sue: This rephrasing of the text works for me. > 3. Section 6.1, paragraph 2, sub-bullet, consider better wording > > text:/When a prefix's Preferred Lifetime becomes zero, either due to > expiration or due to the receipt of a PIO with a Preferred > Lifetime of zero, the prefix MUST be removed from the list./ > > The text is correct and it abides by rules of grammar. > However, the sentence is difficult to read. If the authors > can think of another way to state this sub-bullet, it would be helpful. To be honest, I'm not exactly sure what the problem is with the text, so I'm not sure how to fix it. We rephrased it to: "When a prefix's Preferred Lifetime becomes zero, either because the Preferred Lifetime expires or because the host receives a PIO for the prefix with a zero Preferred Lifetime, the prefix MUST be removed from the list." Is it better? Sue: The rephrasing was optional. It appears that additional Rephrasing was done for this text later. -- Cheers, Jen Linkova
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list -- gen-art@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to gen-art-le...@ietf.org
