Yes, indeed. Thanks, Ketan
On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 1:16 PM Pascal Thubert <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]
