IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RFC 4861 missing updated-by

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Wed, 16 August 2017 13:31 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7808213219C for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 06:31:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 IyY8U6zIlcwG for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 06:31:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 158E213213F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 06:31:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.201.11]) by mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v7GDVRPN011736; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:31:27 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.217.119] (p5DC7FC78.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [93.199.252.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3xXVcH4xtdzDLKg; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:31:27 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Subject: Re: RFC 4861 missing updated-by
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <20170816132113.ADF72828E3BC@rock.dv.isc.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:31:26 +0200
Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 524583086.710146-3954d4ad15624bf868dc9824b759b760
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <91B11813-6CC2-4E25-992A-5CA79D8D7118@tzi.org>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1708100947130.2261@uplift.swm.pp.se> <8447.1502388439@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <a3ed97e2-e907-6a20-0d00-6de532784f0c@nostrum.com> <826ee900-0edf-2bb4-ed35-3824b6ad8bba@gmail.com> <2664CA78-2291-46C7-ACF9-460AA3A51706@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1708110743410.2261@uplift.swm.pp.se> <52cae497-9539-3ba3-70b7-0bb55317f986@gmail.com> <12017.1502561028@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1708130754510.3655@uplift.swm.pp.se> <8318F69E-BD7C-404F-9420-0FEA1340936E@employees.org> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1708151234491.3655@uplift.swm.pp.se> <F7C3A4FB-24A4-4A94-9262-FC4C1BF302B7@employees.org> <55c9de60-fdd7-f8c4-4b6d-29f4878d84da@gmail.com> <13BD69AB-B8DF-4023-85A5-813B6A62775A@employees.org> <3843.1502886797@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <CAOSSMjVCTMz9K-h08brgs_u5HJjtYmc7RvXrcoB71WgUrhqCLw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1708161444230.3655@uplift.swm.pp.se> <20170816132113.ADF72828E3BC@rock.dv.isc.org>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/-fF8C9rm-a1joONyRJCeMOZ7vYw>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 13:31:38 -0000

We have a long tradition of misidentifying bits in packets that really are extension points.

“Reserved” is only marginally better than “MBZ” (which turns untrue with the next extension using them); both signal to the implementer “I don’t have to think about these fields”.

To avoid those misconceptions coming up with the readers of specs, in box notation, I like to mark those bits available as extension points with an underscore (see Figure 5 of RFC 7400):

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7400#section-3.3

This does make people wonder, and maybe readers then go ahead and read what is actually said about these bits.

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email