Subject: [lisp] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20: (with DISCUSS)

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 22:28:06 -0700

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20: Discuss

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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

* Section 7.1.

This should be an easy fix but I would like to see it fixed before publication.
When talking about IPv6 packets being larger than L, the correct behavior
should be to send an ICMPv6 message with Type 2 (Packet Too Big) instead of the
Destination Unreachable (Type 1) message as specified in the text. The text *is
correct* for IPv4 messages with the DF bit set where the Destination
Unreachable (Type 3) is the right kind of message to send.

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 10:27:22 -0700

> Unreachable (Type 3) is the right kind of message to send.

Consider this fixed in -21. We had this comment before and missed this one occurence. I will make it the same language to be consistent with section 7.2. Thanks.

Dino

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 20:08:32 +0000

> On Sep 27, 2018, at 1:27 PM, Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Awesome Dino. Will clear as soon as -21 hits.

Regards
Suresh