Many thanks Ketan :) :)
Would that work as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length = 1 | Experimental |X|A|D|L|B|P|E|G|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|F| Unassigned |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
all the best
Pascal
Le mer. 4 juin 2025 à 08:33, Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> a
écrit :
> Hi Paul,
>
> Just one this one below:
>
> In Figure 4, why is the F bit taken from the next 4 bytes, while there is
> still
> room in the Reserved space before that?
>
> I also tripped on this but I saw that in the IANA registration, those 7
> bits were not "reserved" but "reserved for experimental".
>
> Pascal, perhaps you should update the diagram to reflect that they are
> experimental instead of just plain reserved? Or something like that ...
>
> Thanks,
> Ketan
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 6:48 AM Paul Wouters via Datatracker <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-6lo-prefix-registration-11: Discuss
>>
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>
>>
>> Please refer to
>> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
>> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>
>>
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-prefix-registration/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DISCUSS:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> I share the concerns of Ketan and Mohamed regarding the normative use of
>> an
>> individual internet draft that has no IETF consensus. It would be better
>> if
>> only RFCs that are "updated" (as opposed to "extended") are given the
>> Update:
>> flag The Update: tag also lists more RFCs than mentioned in the Abstract,
>> so it
>> seems something is still missing?
>>
>> I am not a topic expert on this, so I hope the next two questions make
>> sense.
>> But:
>>
>> In Figure 4, why is the F bit taken from the next 4 bytes, while there is
>> still
>> room in the Reserved space before that?
>>
>> In Figure 5, what was taken up by the space of the F bit before this? It
>> seems
>> unlikely there was only a single unused bit there?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
--
Pascal
_______________________________________________
6lo mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
