Subject: Comments on Node Requirements document

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 14:06:23 +0300 (EEST)

Hello,

Some comments.

In general, I think the approach is a good one.  However, in the next 
revisions (as was probably intended) there possibly needs to be much more 
detailed descriptions on what is really necessary and what not.  Also, in 
some areas there may be need for a "Discussion" part.

And more detailed ones..

3.2 RFC2467 - A Method for the Transmission of IPv6 Packets over FDDI   
              Networks

   A Method for the Transmission of IPv6 Packets over FDDI Networks
   [RFC-2467] is conditionally mandatory if the node has a FDDI
   interface.
[and others]

==> I'm not sure if this 'has XXX interface' is the right wording.  IMO, 
it's perfectly ok for an OS to be a conformant IPv6 node and NOT support 
some legacy interfaces like FDDI or Token Ring, or whatnot.  This is more 
of a question what are the supported interfaces.

3.6 RFC2492 - IPv6 over ATM Networks

   IPv6 over ATM Networks [RFC2492] is conditionally mandatory if the
   node has an ATM interface.

==> PVC features yes, but are SVC functionalities also mandatory?

4.1.1 RFC2460 - Internet Protocol Version 6

Nodes must always be able to receive fragment headers. However, if it
   does not implement path MTU it may not need to send fragment headers.

==> path MTU discovery.

==> take a look at draft-savola-ipv6-rh-hosts-00.txt, does some text 
regarding the processing of RH's belong here or do we need to issue some 
corrective/clarificative RFC's?

4.2.1 RFC2461 - Neighbor Discovery for IPv6

   Receiving Router Advertisement is unconditionally mandatory for host
   implementation, with a configuration option to disable this
   functionality.

==> I guess the node must also process the RA, but that's semantics.  Are 
all features (now and future :-) in RA's a must to implement and support?

4.3.2 RFC2675 - IPv6 Jumbograms

   IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] is unconditionally optional.

4.4 ICMPv6

   ICMPv6 [RFC 2463] is Unconditionally Mandatory.

==> there seem to be some differences with the capitalization of the magic 
words.

4.6.2 RFC2710 - Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6

   Multicast Listener Discovery [RFC-2710] is Conditionally Mandatory,
   where the condition is if the node joins any multicast groups other
   than the all-nodes-on-link group (which will always be the case if it
   runs ND or DAD on the link).

==> That condition is this?  The node always joins its solicited multicast 
addresses (at least for link-local addresses), so this section would seem 
to always evaluate to "Mandatory" ??

9.1 RFC2711 - IPv6 Router Alert Option

   The Router Alert Option [RFC-2711] is conditionally mandatory if the
   node does performs packet forwarding at the IP layer.

==> s/does performs/does perform/ ?

==> what kind of IP router is it if it doesn't forward packets at the IP 
layer?  (I have no idea..)

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 15:05:16 +0300

Hi Pekka,

> In general, I think the approach is a good one.  

Thanks, I was initially trying to get feedback on the format ...

> However, in the next revisions (as was probably intended) there possibly needs to 
> be much more detailed descriptions on what is really necessary and what 
> not.  Also, in some areas there may be need for a "Discussion" part.

Definately, feel free to suggest text.

> of a question what are the supported interfaces.

The idea is that these only need to be implemented if there to use one of
the interfaces.  In most cases, you won't need support for legacy interfaces.

> ==> PVC features yes, but are SVC functionalities also mandatory?

This one I need to dig into more, I must admit to not being an IPv6 over
ATM expert.
 
>    does not implement path MTU it may not need to send fragment headers.

will fix.

> regarding the processing of RH's belong here or do we need to 
> issue some corrective/clarificative RFC's?

I will look at it and see what kind of text is needed.
 
> all features (now and future :-) in RA's a must to implement 

I will need look into clarification fior this.

> ==> there seem to be some differences with the capitalization 

Will fix.
 
> to always evaluate to "Mandatory" ??

There has been some off-list discussion that hosts may not be able to depend
on MLD if there is no connection to a router, therefore this may not be Mandatory.
I think we need some discussion on this.

> ==> s/does performs/does perform/ ?

Will fix.
 
> ==> what kind of IP router is it if it doesn't forward 
> packets at the IP layer?  (I have no idea..)

I get your point ...

John

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 14:19:43 +0300

Hi Pekka,

> all features (now and future :-) in RA's a must to implement 

Well, that would be some code if it could do all of that.  What is your suggestion
for text?

John