RE: Universal RA option draft - ASN1 JSON CBOR

["Templin (US), Fred L" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alex,

> I am happy to see rio there.  I would like to extend that 'rio' to tell
> that it can be - optionally - accepted by a router.  (at this time RIO
> can only be accepted by a Host, its RFC says).  I suggest this to be
> made part of it:
> 
> rio_route-router = {
>     prefix : tstr
>     preference : (0..3)
>     ? lifetime : uint
> }

We talk more about RIOs in 'draft-templin-6man-rio-redirect':

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-6man-rio-redirect/

In that document, we also define an optional "attributes" extension.
Would that also need to appear here?

Incidentally, RIO with attributes might be useful for the ITS use cases
where some other drafts were proposing the definition of a new ND
option. I think a new ND option is not needed if we can leverage RIO.
What do you think?

Thanks - Fred