IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RFC 4861 missing updated-by

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Tue, 15 August 2017 11:04 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 CE378132194 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 04:04:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 pLcI8_XphFVq for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 04:04:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from accordion.employees.org (accordion.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 339681320DC for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 04:04:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from h.hanazo.no (96.51-175-103.customer.lyse.net [51.175.103.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by accordion.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 37C122D4FA1; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 11:04:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36600F728DAB; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 13:04:24 +0200 (CEST)
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Message-Id: <F7C3A4FB-24A4-4A94-9262-FC4C1BF302B7@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A3832994-668F-49B6-8AEF-E007D0C25DB5"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Subject: Re: RFC 4861 missing updated-by
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 13:04:23 +0200
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1708151234491.3655@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@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>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/wmchA8iP5b6sQLkYpHs3Ip7urrk>
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: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 11:04:30 -0000

Mikael,

>> I don't think adding a new flag in a "Reserved" field qualifies as updating an RFC.
>> That's what we have IANA registries for.
> 
> So where is the IANA registry for the bit fields that RFC4861 standardises?
> 
> Or so say it another way:
> 
> If I want to use a new bit field that for instance RFC4861 specifies, how am I going to find what other RFCs has touched this, if there is no IANA registry (as far as I know there isn't, I can't find one).
> 
> Someone (IETF leadership) has to put their foot down and say one of two things (or something completely different):
> 
> 1. If you move reserved bits to in-sure, you update the original RFC that defined these bits as reserved. Metadata is added to the original RFC so this can be found.
> 
> 2. There must be IANA registries for all bit fields, and if you change reserved bits to in-use, this must be reflected in the IANA registry.
> 
> The way we do things now by not having IANA registries and not updating RFCs when changing reserved bits to in-use is extremely prone to mistakes. We missed this completely when we wrote PIO-X and it was caught because someone happened to notice it and who was into MIPv6.
> 
> Or what am I missing?

As far as I can see you are correct.

The resolution I would prefer in this case would be that you wrote a draft instructing IANA to create the new PIO flags registry.

Best regards,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email