Hi Pascal,

Informational documents can also have normative text. If that was the criteria 
the decision was made on, the decisions should be re-evaluated.

Mirja



> On 4. Mar 2020, at 13:25, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> 
> Dear Mirja (and Ben),
> 
> Many thanks for reviewing this document!
> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> I agree with one of Ben's comments in that I'm not certain about the intended
>> document status as PS. I think Informational might be more appropriate, as it
>> rather describes an approach based on existing protocols than a normative
>> protocol specification.
> 
> This was long debated and went back and forth. We finally settled for STD 
> track after the review by Dave Thaler.
> There's actually generic normative text in this document, in the forwarding 
> fragments section. 
> Any spec that provides a fragment forwarding technique should normatively 
> refer this and abide by that text.
> 
> As an example, but there's more:
> "
>  Since the datagram_tag is uniquely associated to the source Link-
>   Layer address of the fragment, the forwarding node MUST assign a new
>   datagram_tag from its own namespace for the next hop and rewrite the
>   fragment header of each fragment with that datagram_tag.
> 
>   When a forwarding node receives a fragment other than a first
>   fragment, it MUST look up state based on the source Link-Layer
>   address and the datagram_tag in the received fragment.  If no such
>   state is found, the fragment MUST be dropped; otherwise the fragment
>   MUST be forwarded using the information in the state found.
> "
> 
> This is why we ended up with STD track. You found reviewing 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery that there's 
> already a std track with a normative reference to this.
> 
> Many thanks again!
> 
> Pascal

_______________________________________________
6lo mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo

Reply via email to