IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RFC 4861 missing updated-by

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Wed, 16 August 2017 12:08 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 BD14E1326A0 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 05:08:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 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] 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 tsJIhbUeiQSo for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 05:08:53 -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 961F813269D for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 05:08:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 57DB6AF; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 14:08:51 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1502885331; bh=13gSLOSfZc4Pgspce2FfALHH6lfpNZ0jkUZQP5UeI+Y=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Rpy5DP4DQWwuEDfdKPVfqKLlCULL9szDWmO1aNXvA1Bbebn2NHvvDCXIu7xPsk+zD XMroEIFxEz2WuUGFjFSI/V2EPV/TwFjhm/UqAmSp0wMs8SJcQX1RP9/J9C/YlRiAud fSStDph/OpgjnurPMqmaSE44px3/oaHBqDmROIHY=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 550DE84; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 14:08:51 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 14:08:51 +0200
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
cc: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: RFC 4861 missing updated-by
In-Reply-To: <D57D63F2-4B16-4342-91DE-43102116D7E6@employees.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1708161406090.3655@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1708100947130.2261@uplift.swm.pp.se> <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> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1708152330150.3655@uplift.swm.pp.se> <D3A540FC-E197-41D1-B3FB-B8CB530EB152@employees.org> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1708160721130.3655@uplift.swm.pp.se> <B31EA17B-E431-4892-87DE-AE665D04E024@employees.org> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1708161041140.3655@uplift.swm.pp.se> <289FAC54-6333-4CC3 -A586-03DD7E58759A@employees.org> <78463B7D-8D4B-449A-BDC9-E05F0280046B@steffann.nl> <0D2E34F3-B6AA-4AE4-A094-8F87FBC9EFF4@steffann.nl> <EA25C6CA-A76B-4AC8-A73E-646AFCB77D0F@employees.org> <4D5E5BDC-0FBD-4CE2-AB37-7EAC642ED9C3@steffann.nl> <829F6997-4AC8-400C-B981-A5D5B2FE10C2@employees.org> <FDF369E8-4575-4606-9C92-BA2F1F7C0584@steffann.nl> <D57D63F2-4B16-4342-91DE-43102116D7E6@employees.org>
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/hZQu0vhxcIBKuS8xPEQB8TO3AKM>
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 12:08:56 -0000

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017, Ole Troan wrote:

> An update to 4861 would be something that would affect the implementor 
> of 4861 and changes that could be incorporated if 4861 would be updated. 
> that's not at all 6275. 6275 can be completely ignored from a 4861 
> perspective, unless you chose to implement 6275.

Then we need new meta tags.

Either there needs to be a "bitfield-updated-by" metatag to handle this 
usecase, or there needs to be an 
"IANA-registry-now-for-bitfields-mentioned-in-this-RFC" metatag, or both.

Having no mention what so ever that reserved bits are no longer reserved 
is just... I don't know, I just can't graps why you think it's ok for 4861 
to have no mention what so ever that some reserved bits are no longer 
reserved and that the MUST for them to be ZERO no longer applies.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email