IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Int-area] AD review of draft-ietf-intarea-gue

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Wed, 06 October 2021 09:32 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5E9D3A191A for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 02:32:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 D1w9CM_u2Iq0 for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 02:32:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D0533A1916 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 02:32:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (p5089a8ac.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.168.172]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4HPTkf5fmcz2xgG; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 11:32:26 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <6D36704E-EF85-41F4-B9C2-A7158B86842A@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2021 11:32:26 +0200
Cc: "tom@herbertland.com" <tom@herbertland.com>, "lucy_yong@yahoo.com" <lucy_yong@yahoo.com>, "osamaz@microsoft.com" <osamaz@microsoft.com>, Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, int-area <int-area@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <16097FA1-E68A-4B01-AE9D-C7952DCD862A@tzi.org>
References: <6D36704E-EF85-41F4-B9C2-A7158B86842A@cisco.com>
To: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/tsedzvGItwv6G-n_QDwslsaS73c>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] AD review of draft-ietf-intarea-gue
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <int-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-area/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2021 09:32:35 -0000

On 5. Oct 2020, at 15:38, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> 	• s/four byte header/four-octet header/ (at least use 'octet' rather than 'byte' as some ADs are very strict on this use)

I don’t think we need this regression.

(Many recent RFCs have this sentence in the terminology section:

The term "byte" is used in its now-customary sense as a synonym for "octet”. 

…to defuse any remaining concern.)

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email