IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-6man-unrecognized-opt-02.txt

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Thu, 26 July 2018 17:57 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@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 D6712124D68 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 10:57:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.422
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.422 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.979, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 L6zKCf-i61iV for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 10:57:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-f175.google.com (mail-lj1-f175.google.com [209.85.208.175]) (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 355D9130E8A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 10:57:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-f175.google.com with SMTP id y17-v6so2240309ljy.8 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 10:57:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=7QqzPQvRi7oMQDGnFfmyIxsjWlUfcC+GHpcY2/EsseU=; b=Hbdce1xJK7c4LjAr8gHEKumYsOEuqA+NtkklGFVJ9nDq9LnrikDn4B2lUGUR/4EVwi wbfZh6KenAYLU0by1Ilpjl4+uBiHr+H5PcjcBPOFHOoswau45UlZ5QgRIsPEGxGWvb2S K6dtHwzR8VJuUuVGIyhDVRbtM1Xr2YU1SAkDlVNjpiot4q9YGBrgfYXi0WtE9RpyFptk ZaOCG4A9L2lKyaJOMnZLr/xKtdMLZZbQftwpIQgjHZ7MUl1sQRMK8wFKtHRzpbSgB/TV WV8/PwOLnwT9PbJAgwmMmKNrAdoEUO0VLRGQFK7TTNpL4g6L6IoDWdyCtIO6jz2jgHAD l77A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlFYb+ob1HXxbO5ykKVa66UiAqME7nbO0bkN9ySA5yzXuJoUalya 2Tt5b6ufGCGVZHs2psG597Q1502xbHv5KtiPTXM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpewBCzZWXtVD2zm8kumiI8k1Zo/gE8DAAQmFmWmv9hwsxO2er28DA0N4nj7vbjCYbXPw7H/1TYROk+61EnsvIM=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:7113:: with SMTP id m19-v6mr2420388ljc.66.1532627854379; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 10:57:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <153228891182.22962.4260855511063929653.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CO1PR05MB443EF021F73B448BD841754AE570@CO1PR05MB443.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <CO1PR05MB443EF021F73B448BD841754AE570@CO1PR05MB443.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
From: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 10:57:23 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqepLSMmemshqrccNOd9=5pXHXGoC-pwSk0hC_YbGuiuYg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-6man-unrecognized-opt-02.txt
To: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
Cc: IPv6 IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/YtQ7ZGa13PhtUILa01f11eUn3oo>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 17:57:38 -0000

At Sun, 22 Jul 2018 19:54:08 +0000,
Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> wrote:

> Please review...

> Name:        draft-bonica-6man-unrecognized-opt
> Revision:    02
> Title:        The IPv6 Unrecognized Option
> Document date:    2018-07-22
> Group:        Individual Submission
> Pages:        7
> URL:            https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-6man-unrecognized-opt-02

The idea makes sense to me.  One quick comment:

- I think the draft should be more specific about the option length
  rather than (implicitly) leave it to the implementation.  In fact, I
  don't see why it's not the obvious choice of '0'.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email