Re: RFC 4861 missing updated-by

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
wrote:

>
> Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
>     > A reserved field is there for forward extensibility...
>     > How can using that extensibility (which as you state is specified as
>     > MBZ specifically to be forward compatible) be a substantive change to
>     > the RFC that reserved it??
>
> The point is that it deserves an "Updates".
> Someone reason 4861 should be directed to read the update so that they see
> why the reserved bits might not be zero anymore.  It might be functionality
> that they actually want to implement.  Or not.
>
>
> ("MBZ" is the wrong sense, because it "security" devices get it wrong.
> Must send as zero and ignore upon receipt is the functionality that we
> want.
> I wish that our compliance testing suites actually checked that these
> reserved fields are ignored properly)
>

I looked thru the IPv6 Ready Logo Test Specification for this, we test this
for NAs and NSs but not RSs/RAs.   I've filed a bug to update the Test
Specification to check this in the next release.

>
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

-- 

Now offering testing for SDN applications and controllers in our SDN switch
test bed. Learn more today http://bit.ly/SDN_IOLPR