Last Call Review of draft-ietf-6man-resilient-rs-04

Request Review of draft-ietf-6man-resilient-rs
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-02-16
Requested 2015-02-04
Authors Suresh Krishnan, Dmitry Anipko, Dave Thaler
Draft last updated 2015-02-07
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -04 by Brian Carpenter (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -05 by Brian Carpenter (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Mehmet Ersue (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -04 by Les Ginsberg (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Brian Carpenter
State Completed
Review review-ietf-6man-resilient-rs-04-genart-lc-carpenter-2015-02-07
Reviewed rev. 04 (document currently at 06)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2015-02-07


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-6man-resilient-rs-04.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2015-02-07
IETF LC End Date: 2015-02-16
IESG Telechat date:

Summary: Ready

Minor issues:

The writeup says "There was significant discussion if this document
should be extended to support links without multicast RAs
altogether. The consensus in the WG was to not do that in this

But the Abstract says "Furthermore, on some links, unsolicited multicast
Router Advertisements are never sent and the mechanism in this
document is intended to work even in such scenarios."

These two statements are inconsistent. Also, section 2.1 describes
specific behaviour on non-multicast links (which as far as I can see,
will indeed work if RAs are both unicast and solicited).

I think the draft is fine, but the writeup is kind of strange as
a result. draft-nordmark-6man-rs-refresh tackles a different problem,
namely reducing multicast usage on multicast-capable links.

(FYI I did not track these discussions in 6man at all.)