IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [core] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-core-hop-limit-05

"Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com> Fri, 27 September 2019 11:56 UTC

Return-Path: <sob@sobco.com>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37A3B120858; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 04:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 A4CXl18A0Klj; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 04:56:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sobco.sobco.com (unknown [136.248.127.164]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA02D120800; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 04:56:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 871401EE3D49; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 07:56:46 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at sobco.com
Received: from sobco.sobco.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (sobco.sobco.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qLcRtbJUXmpB; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 07:56:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from golem.sobco.com (golem.sobco.com [136.248.127.162]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 76A131EE3D32; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 07:56:45 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: "Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com>
In-Reply-To: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933031327811@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 07:56:45 -0400
Cc: "ops-dir@ietf.org" <ops-dir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-core-hop-limit.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-core-hop-limit.all@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "core@ietf.org" <core@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6E424D4F-5A38-4CDF-A839-5098158EA5A6@sobco.com>
References: <156954173082.31982.2465512704956520690@ietfa.amsl.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330313276CF@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <A63F6779-653D-4DC6-9A79-E3983A742714@sobco.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933031327811@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
To: "<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>" <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/KmMFUq4EcUiSZBr_A22c68KP9_E>
Subject: Re: [core] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-core-hop-limit-05
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 11:56:55 -0000

OK

> On Sep 27, 2019, at 7:55 AM, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:
> 
> Re-,
> 
> Yes, you are right. 
> 
> But, this was fixed in the updated version I shared (https://github.com/boucadair/draft-hop-limit/blob/master/draft-ietf-core-hop-limit-06.txt): the structure of the table in the IANA section is aligned with the one in the IANA registry. 
> 
> The OLD table was moved into the core text. 
> 
> Cheers,
> Med
> 
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : Scott O. Bradner [mailto:sob@sobco.com]
>> Envoyé : vendredi 27 septembre 2019 13:00
>> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN
>> Cc : ops-dir@ietf.org; draft-ietf-core-hop-limit.all@ietf.org;
>> ietf@ietf.org; core@ietf.org
>> Objet : Re: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-core-hop-limit-05
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sep 27, 2019, at 4:30 AM, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> (that
>>>> the IANA registry does not include the option categories)  and would
>>>> suggest
>>>> that section 6.2 specifically refer back to section 5.10 of RFC 7252
>> and
>>>> say
>>>> that it is an extension of the table in the RFC.
>>> 
>>> [Med] No need to mention this is an "extension" of the table in 7252.
>> The IANA registry is used to maintain the updated table.
>> 
>> not quite the case - the IANA maintains a list of options - the table
>> includes additional information not maintained by the IANA
>> (but maybe should be)
>> 
>> Scott
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email