IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RFC 4861 missing updated-by

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Tue, 15 August 2017 11:02 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 CDEDB13218C for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 04:02:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 uUyb-YqRiyvJ for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 04:02:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (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 2977613208E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 04:02:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id BB62CAF; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 13:02:39 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1502794959; bh=zuf3J0WEdFOddsyV4utLtyy/vkpbh1ogaeU3SKNseIg=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=JiyQPTGewQfQM8XEetMf0m+mX2DbatD+7BpFWtkR7m4pS86jm878jkEz7+wM1umZl y3r8rrOr1U9q581h/zriUljaO1UBhm+0ZsIJM96cl7JcTTLC14WpYnYDaTSz6qUFdJ lesQ2PvPRfrCQhjw1ebjz7WOEWQuFGq5C5H8pE7k=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id B911E84; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 13:02:39 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 13:02:39 +0200
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: RFC 4861 missing updated-by
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1708151234491.3655@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1708151300540.3655@uplift.swm.pp.se>
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>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/WedRX-ja6Uq6oGFYDSq2uS8IJjg>
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 11:02:43 -0000

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:

> 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 closest thing I can find:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters/icmpv6-parameters.xhtml#icmpv6-parameters-5

3	Prefix Information	[RFC4861]

If RFC6275 was listed there, then at least there would be a better chance 
of finding it. So is that the errata that should have been filed instead, 
that 6275 didn't send an IANA request to add it to the above item, and 
that this should now be sent?

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email