Dear all I’d suggest that the mistake is on RFC 8928 not this. The reason being that we failed at the time to ask for a IANA registration which would have allowed to detect the overlap. This erratum would imply to change IANA but wouldn’t fix the missing entry…
A bientôt; Pascal > Le 20 mars 2025 à 14:52, RFC Errata System <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> a > écrit : > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9685, > "Listener Subscription for IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Multicast and Anycast > Addresses". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8340 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Adnan Rashid <adnanrashi...@gmail.com> > > Section: 7.1 > > Original Text > ------------- > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Type | Length | Status | Opaque | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |Rsv| P | I |R|T| TID | Registration Lifetime | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | | > ... Registration Ownership Verifier (ROVR) ... > | | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Corrected Text > -------------- > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Type | Length | Status | Opaque | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |R| P |C| I |R|T| TID | Registration Lifetime | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | | > ... Registration Ownership Verifier (ROVR) ... > | | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Notes > ----- > The EARO format in RFC 9685 (Figure 5) omits the C-flag, which was > previously defined in RFC 8928. This inconsistency could lead to issues in > implementation and interoperability. It is important to ensure that newer > standards respect and align with existing conventions. > small "R" is a single unused/Reserved bit. > > Instructions: > ------------- > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". (If it is spam, it > will be removed shortly by the RFC Production Center.) Please > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party > will log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC9685 (draft-ietf-6lo-multicast-registration-19) > -------------------------------------- > Title : Listener Subscription for IPv6 Neighbor Discovery > Multicast and Anycast Addresses > Publication Date : November 2024 > Author(s) : P. Thubert, Ed. > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG > > _______________________________________________ > 6lo mailing list -- 6lo@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to 6lo-le...@ietf.org _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list -- 6lo@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to 6lo-le...@ietf.org
