Soliman, Hesham wrote:
All done, except:
> define the policy for the Neighbour Discovery options (since
> this hasn't
> previously been properly defined).
=> Did you mean the policy of allocating new option numbers?
Yes. I don't think this is covered elsewhere and there was no explicit
policy for new allocations of ND options in RFC2461.
> - it should probably explicitly define the ICMP types and ND options
> which are being continued from RFC2461 as they don't have an
> explicit
> registration in RFC2461.
=> I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. What do you
mean by "don't have an explicit registration in RFC2461."?
The IANA considerations section in RFC2461 was very skimpy and didn't
explicitly say what new ICMPv6 message types were being added or what
the set of ND options being defined were. It would be useful to have
the list in the update as the set of registrations that are being
'continued'.
I assume from your comment above that there is a new version in the offing!
Elwyn
Hesham
>
> Regards,
> Elwyn
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email protected]
> Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
===========================================================
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use
of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender
and delete all copies.
===========================================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
