IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RFC 4861 missing updated-by

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Wed, 06 September 2017 19:59 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 9ACBC126B71 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Sep 2017 12:59:26 -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 KdjtQ38CaCqm for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Sep 2017 12:59:25 -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 4D282124E15 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Sep 2017 12:59:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 67762B1; Wed, 6 Sep 2017 21:59:23 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1504727963; bh=ZJZYupU3MA+q7SLKXPOpIf9Znry2hGrK1AZSfm89YlI=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=kst++MqthmdUOnVdaEDpongSPRuza1/hnJWd8IXBWSiZpBfHbsIJd0gXy4MPcc8yY trIZ66xA16W87AlTTuE50nt6mz/IycScXi2eCE0/4enjVOTN+rSOoGS/mBVE0tW72D Io6+PvG2GCfw+gwo4zgPwb9KanqkY0rfytjGzgcs=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65352AF; Wed, 6 Sep 2017 21:59:23 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2017 21:59:23 +0200
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: RFC 4861 missing updated-by
In-Reply-To: <68BB141F-6E66-491F-9FDB-D67709585C2F@employees.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1709062152360.29378@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> <4864.1502919481@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <338FC806-C696-44ED-A0C5-4B0B9D1A6F84@tzi.org> <7409.1502937298@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <68BB141F-6E66-491F-9FDB-D67709585C2F@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/nkRoqiifZLq94VMJBbOPLyClhs4>
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, 06 Sep 2017 19:59:26 -0000

On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, Ole Troan wrote:

> To hopefully conclude this thread.
> When reviewing this issue again, I did notice that we actually do have a complete registry for router flags:
>
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters/icmpv6-parameters.xhtml#icmpv6-parameters-11
>
> In hindsight one could have argued that perhaps RFC5175 should have updated RFC4861 when it created the registry.
> I don't think that issue is big enough to justify any further action on this topic.

I can't find PIO flags registry in there.

https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-pioxfolks-6man-pio-exclusive-bit-02.html#rfc.section.5

Where is the registry where L, A, R for PIO is done?

RFC4861 defines L and A flags.
RFC5175 adds R flag.

I can't find 5175 mentioned anywhere relevant in the link you sent. The 
link you sent points to RA bits, not PIO bits.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email