Re: Last Call: draft-manner-router-alert-iana (IANA Considerations for the IPv4 and IPv6 Router Alert Option) to Proposed Standard

Got it, thanks.

Jukka

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008, Jari Arkko wrote:

> Jukka,
>
>> Both registries will use 32 values for the aggregation levels. For IPv6 
>> RAO, value 3 is removed but value 35 is kept. Thus, IPv6 will have values 
>> 4-35 (=32 values) for the 32 levels.
>
> OK
>
>> We can make this more clear, yet, I already answered a question from IANA 
>> about this a couple of weeks ago, so they are aware of how the registry 
>> should be changed.
> Which is good, but I was hoping the RFC itself would also be clear on this. 
> How about this:
>
> OLD:
>  | 3        | Aggregated Reservation  | Aggregated Reservation       |
>  |          | Nesting Level 3         | Nesting Level 0 [RFC3175]    |
>  |          | [RFC3175]               |                              |
> NEW:
>  | 3        | Aggregated Reservation  | Aggregated Reservation       |
>  |          | Nesting Level 3         | Nesting Level 0 [RFC3175](*) |
>  |          | [RFC3175]               |                              |
>
> OLD:
>  Note (*): The entry in the above table for the IPv6 RAO Value of 35
>  (Aggregated Reservation Nesting Level 32) has been marked due to an
>  inconsistency in the text of [RFC3175], and that is consequently
>  reflected in the IANA registry.  In that document the values 3-35
>  (i.e. 33 values) are defined for nesting levels 0-31 (i.e. 32
>  levels).
>
>  It is unclear why nesting levels begin at 1 for IPv4 (described in
>  section 1.4.9 of [RFC3175]) and 0 for IPv6 (allocated in section 6 of
>  [RFC3175]).
> NEW:
>  Note (*): The entry in the above table for the IPv6 RAO Value of 35
>  (Aggregated Reservation Nesting Level 32) has been marked due to an
>  inconsistency in the text of [RFC3175], and that is consequently
>  reflected in the IANA registry.  In that document the values 3-35
>  (i.e. 33 values) are defined for nesting levels 0-31 (i.e. 32
>  levels). Similarly, value 3 is duplicate, because aggregation
>  level 0 means end-to-end signaling, and this already has an IPv6
>  RAO value "1" assigned.
>
>  Also note that nesting levels begin at 1 for IPv4 (described in
>  section 1.4.9 of [RFC3175]) and 0 for IPv6 (allocated in section 6 of
>  [RFC3175]).
>
>  Section 3.2 of this document redefines these so that for IPv6,
>  value 3 is no longer used and values 4-35 represent levels
>  1-32. This removes the above inconsistencies.
>
>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf