Re: [radext] Update RFC 6929 in draft-ietf-radext-radius-fragmentation

El 18/03/14 22:58, Alan DeKok escribió:
> Jim Schaad wrote:
>> While it is true that an implementer of 6929 does not need to see this
>> document, it is also true that this document is effectively allocating a
>> bit from a structure that is in that document.  If this document does
>> not update 6929, then it is possible that the next document to update
>> that structure will fail to notice this and allocate the same bit for a
>> different purpose.
>   I hope we're all smart enough to remember that the bit is allocated.
> If we're not... the WG should be shut down.
>
>> I believe that this update relationship needs to be retained.
>   It may be useful, but IETF process may forbid it.

In my opinion, this draft does update 6929, as it updates 2865, since
6929 specifies the reserved field MUST be set to 0, and SHOULD be
ignored by recipients, and we change that.

However, following the same reasoning than with 2865, probably it should
not be actually specified until the fragmentation document is re-issued
as a standards track document (if it does).

Regards

>
>   Alan DeKok.
>
> _______________________________________________
> radext mailing list
> radext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext