IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RFC 4861 missing updated-by

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Wed, 06 September 2017 20:03 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 41591124E15 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Sep 2017 13:03:42 -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 2dgOKpQCY30B for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Sep 2017 13:03:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from accordion.employees.org (accordion.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E86D71329B5 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Sep 2017 13:03:39 -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 16D4A2D4FEA; Wed, 6 Sep 2017 20:03:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 404E7102C7619; Wed, 6 Sep 2017 22:03:36 +0200 (CEST)
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Message-Id: <54FCEE43-5476-44FF-85CF-5073808F438F@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D6156C43-B22F-4A02-8781-BA0269489D2B"; 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: Wed, 06 Sep 2017 22:03:35 +0200
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1709062152360.29378@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Cc: 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> <4864.1502919481@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <338FC806-C696-44ED-A0C5-4B0B9D1A6F84@tzi.org> <7409.1502937298@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <68BB141F-6E66-491F-9FDB-D67709585C2F@employees.org> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1709062152360.29378@uplift.swm.pp.se>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/zH2BI8qLPog4ofQ6TTZO-pMbOvs>
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 20:03:42 -0000

Mikael,

>> 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.

That's what you get for taking a break from this thread.
I did think it was a little strange it hadn't been pointed out before. :-)

Oh well, let's write a short document creating the new registry then...

Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email