Re: [6lo] AP-ND 22

Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Mon, 27 April 2020 12:00 UTC

Return-Path: <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 458F03A045E; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 05:00:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W9p5eeoRMffa; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 05:00:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x333.google.com (mail-wm1-x333.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::333]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 378743A0529; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 05:00:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x333.google.com with SMTP id k12so10637951wmj.3; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 05:00:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ip8cIrorti4kpl0rS/0vEHOqaAXNdNhCVgZf3ocL3w8=; b=k+7PV5V4eVQFVgisiUJPuHARTiV2CHM4a25y2Km96JAKVjuIg+uTSXVFbVmhKC8M/l AESmR2H6ai+Fgxv7W7lPzXrpLazQfWRdGzDCSuQ3q2I+aa5MczUWH1XYwBBGeLSa+JkT N7v8Qd98qJRJp5Uku6nxIMbwEL6u051/QDwajquiPSD4pK4K8rfzI7Ya9Oz2UG/iHvIe +pqSvSZKv/EMK4GsMIyrjwymWd3lNCabih6OnmBqH42O+vz9vG+mVaLYs7JftOIT78Hc 5IJIvV8oVpLdR5qAVWlWmHIf4WwGcyectp4vSKuaBZE6PHs7qyFqBO741CmUp1J+Njey iTzg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ip8cIrorti4kpl0rS/0vEHOqaAXNdNhCVgZf3ocL3w8=; b=AlOJmpAnGxpGoKXe82JKdemfPkrxEth33LmEmTT+nBggX3eec8UtW+Mk+srgXk/JmW jk5hE8e1xClKlqxBeuu8V+mmh6HM9fNnSdnk1WjIG1E1TcK6aOFDjNh4Y04Pz0YhQxMr hu1TMdOft+RNQdqC3izryh+dy6z3HzmQEifTJ1ceD9VTkqIpZLZF8KT6MeUiH2v55wb+ cZ//2/wkJEW0Cj0Lx1fTOm7zn+xU5TsCRKu29xdh+TJ58QV2+bVbbX/76aF8V6QePmNH BcGYhEfhIi3Q1I0Z79q7dNiF6nIgw6cd6xeFCGuo6lCqFz8Ja81N7JGvRUj+Ba3KA2or 0gJQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuaM2WnXm3ne7rzFpAGenx4GpkaoO/EoFkvLub/T85rUxSKv5nnH 4nu5iHfVCX1+IKwbboMyTCeqs7/9oPm2YZ+UonA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypJWZs1pFhMNcmppF9didZwl7ZxWqxvmgi+2ut/j9vL55w0WKxmmEy0avaEzCfph1J0s8RqkfZdFz5u3iYq2Gik=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:2b46:: with SMTP id r67mr2760632wmr.160.1587988840811; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 05:00:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <MN2PR11MB3565BD638A8BCEE57216998BD8D00@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CADnDZ8_0Bms-pGiGnAX6Cz496qhSOaCGNMggpg7fsQM5wn892w@mail.gmail.com> <20200427035234.GR27494@kduck.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20200427035234.GR27494@kduck.mit.edu>
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 14:00:28 +0200
Message-ID: <CADnDZ89-sJ=rADyY-o8_fxbm-MB3cgmtC86GTXkmzLuf6ww66Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Cc: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Rene Struik <rstruik.ext@gmail.com>, Mohit Sethi <mohit.m.sethi@ericsson.com>, Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>, "6lo-chairs@ietf.org" <6lo-chairs@ietf.org>, Erik Kline <ek@loon.com>, "Shwetha Bhandari (shwethab)" <shwethab@cisco.com>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c38fb505a4447656"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/isWTXp5PuYWZ8nPiZeqf-mDlm8Q>
Subject: Re: [6lo] AP-ND 22
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6lo/>
List-Post: <mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 12:00:46 -0000

On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 5:52 AM Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 09:10:33AM +0200, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> >   The draft should indicated on top first page that it updates RFC6775,
> > 7400, and 8505, it only shows updating RFC8505.
>
> The 6775 case was discussed extensively during IESG Evaluation.
> Note that 8505 itself Updates 6775, and the changes in this document affect
> only what 8505 does (IIRC).  I'm not sure why you want this document to
> update 7400 -- it seems to just be allocating some bits from the "6LoWPAN
> capability Bits" registry established by 7400.


IMO it updates section 3.4 in RFC7400, it is not only adding bits, it is
adding the way of using 6CIO, we would not add bits only to add tasks in
protocols,


> (Well, it would be if the
> IANA considerations were updated to state that, at least.)  Allocating bits
> from a registry is usually not seen to need an Updates relationship.
>

yes IMO it should include also the IANA considerations

best regards

AB


> -Ben
>