Hi, Fred
> If the concern is for backwards compatibility with legacy deployments, the
> proposal honors backwards compatibility per RFC4861. What do you think?
>From the section 3. of the draft:
"The contents of the Reserved field, and of any unrecognized
options, MUST be ignored. Future, backward-compatible changes to
the protocol may specify the contents of the Reserved field or add
new options; "
RIO options in Redirect Message are not "unrecognized" options
but are "not specified to be used with Redirect memssages". The
next pragraph in RFC4861 is better text to be quoted:
The contents of any defined options that are not specified to be used
with Redirect messages MUST be ignored and the packet processed as
normal. The only defined options that may appear are the Target
Link-Layer Address option and the Redirected Header option.
( https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4861#page-74 )
Once the draft is published as a RFC, it shall update the second sentence.
Thanks,
Tomoyuki
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
