Re: [IPv6] Working Group Last Call for <draft-ietf-6man-pio-pflag>

[Tim Chown <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jen,

On 8 Apr 2024, at 14:13, Jen Linkova <[e-mail]> wrote:

On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 11:07 PM Jen Linkova <[e-mail]> wrote:
As an aside I was also surprised that RFC 4861 doesn’t say “Updated by RFC 6275” in its header.

Good catch. [chair hat on] I guess we need to do smth about that - I
also missed the fact the Reserved field is 5, not 6 bits, as RFC 6275
is not linked.

Ah, I stand corrected. There was errata about that:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5083
and https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8425.html

So, strictly speaking, as RFC8425 updates RFC4861 to create the
registry, this draft probably doesn't even need to update RFC4861.
That makes everything simpler by just eliminating Section 7.1 ;)

I think my headache is easing now, this makes sense.

I missed the “updated by RFC 8425” as I was looking at the HTML rendered version of RFC 4861 at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4861.html
rather than the data tracker version at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc4861/
where you can see RFC 8425 (and RFC 9131) listed which are missing on the HTML rendered version.
That’s probably something to point the tools team at, either ensure all updating RFCs are listed, or list none like the text and PDF versions (personally I’d prefer all versions to list all updating RFCs).

Anyway I’d agree that we can now simplify section 7.1 in your draft by pointing at
https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters/icmpv6-parameters.xhtml#ipv6-neighbor-discovery-prefix-information-options
and add your draft as an RFC alongside RFC 8425 there with bit 3 for the P flag.
You already pointed at RFC 8425 in the IANA considerations section :)

Tim