Thank you, Tomoyuki-san. I agree with your observation, and will make the necessary changes to the draft.
Fred [email protected] > -----Original Message----- > From: Tomoyuki Sahara [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 11:28 PM > To: Templin, Fred L <[email protected]> > Cc: 6man WG <[email protected]>; INT Area <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Route Information Options in Redirect Messages > > 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
