Re: rfc2460bis and Frag ID generation

[Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>]

> On Feb 4, 2016, at 12:16 PM, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 02/04/2016 05:05 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
>> Fernanco,
>> 
>>> On Feb 4, 2016, at 11:42 AM, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 02/04/2016 04:24 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
>>> [....]
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>> 
>>>> I looked at this earlier and also thought the 32-bit wrap around
>>>> counter text was dated.  I am OK with something similar to what you
>>>> proposed.  My read of the current text is that it is describes the
>>>> 32-bit wrap around counter as an example, as opposed the only way to
>>>> do it, so an update like this would be OK.
>>>> 
>>>> Other comments?
>>> 
>>> BTW, please let me know if the current version will not be revised in
>>> less than, say, 1 week, and I could do a full review….
>> 
>> Not sure, other than this possible change, I don’t have anything else queued up.
> 
> I meant... if the I-D is going to be stable for a few days, I can do a
> complete review. Otherwise I'd wait for the next rev, so that I review
> the updated doc…

I promise not to make any changes until next week :-)

More importantly, I doubt there will be any major changes going forward.

Bob

> 
> Cheers,
> --
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: [e-mail]
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
> 
> 
> 
>