Yes. That's a bug. I will fix it as Alexey suggested. Best Regards! -Haibin
> -----Original Message----- > From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2016 6:28 AM > To: The IESG > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Jari Arkko's No Objection on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-21: (with > COMMENT) > > Jari Arkko has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-21: No Objection > > 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thanks for improving the IANA considerations section! However, Section > 9.1 still has a bug that IMHO needs to be corrected. The reserved values need > to be shifted in value by one, because now you have two with the value 1. > > As Alexey said: "The draft has improved, however Section 9.1 still seems > incorrect: if the first bit is reserved, then the first allocated value must > be 2, so > all other allocated values should be shifted by 1 bit." > > However, I have cleared so that the shepherding AD and the WG can take care > of this. Please make sure you fix this though, as my understanding is that if > you > didn't make the change, the protocol would not work as you intended it to > work. > _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
