Thinking twice we could leverage the prefix registration draft to fix this including the missing IANA section for RFC 8928.
Which should move? A bientôt; Pascal > Le 20 mars 2025 à 20:21, Pascal Thubert <pascal.thub...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > 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
