I think the group gets where we two are standing on this issue, I would be interested in the opinion of others on this issue, and not to forget the second issue I posted.
Best, Rolf Am 07.11.24 um 15:59 schrieb Ron Bonica:
Rolf, Your draft contradicts RFCs 792, 4443, and RFC 4884. * RFC 792 and 4443 both say that the code field in both the echo and echo reply must equal 0. * RFC 792 says that "The data received in the echo message must be returned in the echo reply message" * RFC 4443 is more specific, saying that "The data received in the ICMPv6 Echo Request message MUST be returned entirely and unmodified in the ICMPv6 Echo Reply message. * And finally, Section 4 of RFC 4884 enumerates which ICMP messages can be extended and which cannot.Your draft will have to update all of those. Let's chat after you have written the relevant sections of your draft. I wonder if changing the semantic of the data field in the echo and echo reply message will upset some stateful firewalls?Ron> The IANA considerations section contains our code point allocations and > sections 3 and following contains their use. It should be pretty clear >from that. What information are you missing in particular? > >Rolf Juniper Business Use Only _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list -- int-area@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to int-area-le...@ietf.org
smime.p7s
Description: Kryptografische S/MIME-Signatur
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list -- int-area@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to int-area-le...@ietf.org