On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 5:52 AM Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 09:10:33AM +0200, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > > The draft should indicated on top first page that it updates RFC6775, > > 7400, and 8505, it only shows updating RFC8505. > > The 6775 case was discussed extensively during IESG Evaluation. > Note that 8505 itself Updates 6775, and the changes in this document affect > only what 8505 does (IIRC). I'm not sure why you want this document to > update 7400 -- it seems to just be allocating some bits from the "6LoWPAN > capability Bits" registry established by 7400. IMO it updates section 3.4 in RFC7400, it is not only adding bits, it is adding the way of using 6CIO, we would not add bits only to add tasks in protocols, > (Well, it would be if the > IANA considerations were updated to state that, at least.) Allocating bits > from a registry is usually not seen to need an Updates relationship. > yes IMO it should include also the IANA considerations best regards AB > -Ben >
_______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
