IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RFC 4861 missing updated-by

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 15 August 2017 20:53 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 414E513263E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 13:53:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 BLd0haNH_fuQ for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 13:53:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg0-x232.google.com (mail-pg0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DBE413263B for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 13:53:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg0-x232.google.com with SMTP id v189so12516212pgd.2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 13:53:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=hcuqq8MX+Bje5r/MNUDfRAl/T89cbg2+Coe3G8LU/a8=; b=p4gxNxfu79GuLmjxgzy/dee1uP8rMJGGTdbmvNWLQBZtt07MKAwY5o9+QIVvmeIDno cuhBucCHmWa6LD709pA7bNvrNsbU058nb4FSOEX/22vNHeIYu7u0ChvZywv4X56Nhnry lBJKe1NDzKvMa42znZflS/XHnf/NdEeqhB2Ximnx68qQPnAz2fzr3cceeIlCPIQATvUt MOjcB1QKGaugVycm9isxeNrGA6A0bD/9w9BX4Y8IkuL3t8/rP9KGJ+38Equix+gB6vjS ISiagUp9RuAMluuNfL8x4FiFzFOwhmDVITwY6bh+AGFImrla164EN46e7JFSPH9bAhlu Cyeg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hcuqq8MX+Bje5r/MNUDfRAl/T89cbg2+Coe3G8LU/a8=; b=JFv9hgM22HQ6QXqiu8Tqjqgsqrdl9fva+YaOZN7a/3Kk2p+mU+8bdZemBxdKzYmsSD jBBTolu9Azi8dAeDlaXUndAqk5OL+HhEINKUYNmOAqdIdYIbghgXyfZOuY0YkDN5UR7j eI/ks5Um9xJi7XkOhg1o8RnoEeacDwA+68PM2k3jHkRhrTeLgFX9Cj3TqP1u7LG9Kuyq WMdK5rq0naxXgIlWI3dFx7SFXyLKZBGl+PtiYJNgAALM6/bk02zMr+pc6k5PI+BNJbow hkuJZ/WtSSoJ7LUbAboJOxc3jjZ/Dm8XcmCX47QStyZPuNNni6buAiFCsLMaVPVTsFsR Kpmg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5jhzY0R8eLxMr7gQMc4N5BwBCfb4vIlfcHcV7Lmpwm4LFEcioyf 4qz6zqguW4ZJwCIL
X-Received: by 10.98.93.87 with SMTP id r84mr29310495pfb.292.1502830396683; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 13:53:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:521f:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:521f:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d71sm18593875pfg.169.2017.08.15.13.53.14 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 15 Aug 2017 13:53:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: RFC 4861 missing updated-by
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.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>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <55c9de60-fdd7-f8c4-4b6d-29f4878d84da@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 08:53:14 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <F7C3A4FB-24A4-4A94-9262-FC4C1BF302B7@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/ON4-6AhOCBiCAO49j1UlezYcWwQ>
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: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 20:53:19 -0000

On 15/08/2017 23:04, Ole Troan wrote:
> Mikael,
> 
>>> I don't think adding a new flag in a "Reserved" field qualifies as updating an RFC.
>>> That's what we have IANA registries for.
>>
>> So where is the IANA registry for the bit fields that RFC4861 standardises?
>>
>> Or so say it another way:
>>
>> If I want to use a new bit field that for instance RFC4861 specifies, how am I going to find what other RFCs has touched this, if there is no IANA registry (as far as I know there isn't, I can't find one).
>>
>> Someone (IETF leadership) has to put their foot down and say one of two things (or something completely different):
>>
>> 1. If you move reserved bits to in-sure, you update the original RFC that defined these bits as reserved. Metadata is added to the original RFC so this can be found.
>>
>> 2. There must be IANA registries for all bit fields, and if you change reserved bits to in-use, this must be reflected in the IANA registry.
>>
>> The way we do things now by not having IANA registries and not updating RFCs when changing reserved bits to in-use is extremely prone to mistakes. We missed this completely when we wrote PIO-X and it was caught because someone happened to notice it and who was into MIPv6.
>>
>> Or what am I missing?
> 
> As far as I can see you are correct.
> 
> The resolution I would prefer in this case would be that you wrote a draft instructing IANA to create the new PIO flags registry.

Good idea. But Mikael does have a point: changing a "reserved" field (which is typically
also specified as MBZ) to an assigned status is a substantive change to the RFC that
reserved it.

I wish we'd noted that in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6709#section-4.2

    Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email