On Jun 4, 2025, at 04:06, Pascal Thubert <[email protected]> wrote:
I share the concerns of Ketan and Mohamed regarding the normative use of an > individual internet draft that has no IETF consensus. It would be better if > This is not the case. The ref is informational and the needed text is repeated locally, exactly to avoid the above, as follows: But a person just going through linked "Updated by" RFCs wouldn't know about how this one document treats the Update: flag differently from what is normal at the IETF. i believe in general, the idea of Updated by means "there is text here that is updated in this other doc that you MUST read". It specifically excludes extensions which are a form of update but is an optional read and needed only if you want to implement the extension. So even with -12 I see Updates: 6550, 6553, 9010 where as the Abstract states that 6550, 6553 and 9010 are "extended". (note also that anyway reading the abstract doesn't know about your inlined later definition of "extends"). If someone implementing this RFC needs to modify behaviour specified in 6550, 6553, 9010, then the Updates: is correct, but the word "extends" should be "updates". If someone implementing this RFC does not need to modify code in those three RFCs (eg it is just a new registration in one of those RFCs defined registries), then it should not Update: them, but you can use the word "extends". The Update: tag also lists more RFCs than mentioned in the Abstract, so it > seems something is still missing? > Hum... I fail to understand that one as well. All 8 RFCs tagged as "updated" are listed in the abstract. Yes this was my bad. > I am not a topic expert on this, so I hope the next two questions make > sense. > But: > > In Figure 4, why is the F bit taken from the next 4 bytes, while there is > still > room in the Reserved space before that? > > See my proposal to Ketan in this thread. yes thanks for the answer and fix. > In Figure 5, what was taken up by the space of the F bit before this? It > seems > unlikely there was only a single unused bit there? > > The byte was reserved in EARO used in NS messages and used for a status in the response in NA messages. Now we use is in NA messages for one flag + 7-bits prefix length . thanks for the clarification ! Paul
_______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
