Re: [Int-area] multicast over wifi and and IEEE-IETF coordination

I also support the idea of a BoF during an IETF meeting. The issues need to be known to as many people as possible until there is 'a fix' within IEEE -éric On 4/11/15 04:22, "ipv6 on behalf of Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" wrote: >Hello Dan,

[Int-area] Adopting draft-bruneau-intarea-provisioning-domains ?

In Prague (IETF-99), there was a hum for adoption after a long and vivid discussion and the hum was in favor of adoption of this I-D as a intarea document: large interest, running code, privacy section to be enhanced though, critical for other WG and possible a dedicated WG later. Juan-Carlos

Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: Extended Ping (Xping)

As expressed at the mike, I like the idea and support its adoption -éric From: Int-area on behalf of "mohamed.boucad...@orange.com" Date: Wednesday 19 April 2017 at 14:14 To: Wassim Haddad ,

Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: Discovering Provisioning Domain Names and Data

As a co-author, I am obviously supporting the adoption of this document :-) And thanks Wassim, for launching the call -éric On 01/09/17 22:14, "Int-area on behalf of Wassim Haddad" wrote: Dear all, Based on the

Re: [Int-area] [v6ops] WG Adoption Call: Discovering Provisioning Domain Names and Data

Bob, Thanks for your support and more important for your review! [Would I dare to say that it was hard to spot your email inside the IPv10 flood? ;-) ] BTW, do you think that it could be useful to present this I-D in the 6MAN area as well? (assuming it is adopted by intarea) About your

Re: [Int-area] Comments on current MPvD draft.

Ted, For the benefit of the WG members that were not at the WG meeting, let me thank you again for your interest and your comments on the -00. The authors have already discussed about your points and other similar ones. We have two potential approaches to fix this short-term issue: -

Re: [Int-area] Comments on current MPvD draft.

Nov 15, 2017 16:32, "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyn...@cisco.com<mailto:evyn...@cisco.com>> wrote: Ted, For the benefit of the WG members that were not at the WG meeting, let me thank you again for your interest and your comments on the -00. The authors have already discu

Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains-02.txt

Special thanks to Zhen Cao and Tim Chown for their reviews. Draft is in really good shape in the authors' opinion. -éric On 04/06/18 15:00, "Int-area on behalf of internet-dra...@ietf.org" wrote: A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

[Int-area] What is new in -01 of PvD ? Comments are welcome

We just published the -01 as https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains-01 based on the comments received on the mailing list and during the last WG meeting in Singapore. Here is the log of changes: 1) The PvD RA Option may now contain other RA options such that

Re: [Int-area] Hackathon about PvD at IETF-101

Indeed, thank you! On 22/02/18 13:33, "Int-area on behalf of Alexandre Petrescu" <int-area-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of alexandre.petre...@gmail.com> wrote: Rather .org right? https://www.neat-project.org/ Le 20/02/2018 à 11:05, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) a écrit :

[Int-area] Hackathon about PvD at IETF-101

If you want to test your PvD (draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains) implementation, or help with the integration of PvD into NEAT project (EU-funded H2020 www.neat-project.eu) then you are welcome to participate to the free hackathon on the WE before the IETF-101. Open source code:

Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile

+1 for WG adoption The document will need some review though (cfr Brian's valid point below) -éric On 25/07/2018, 05:38, "Int-area on behalf of Brian E Carpenter" wrote: +1 for adoption. However, I am a bit concerned about this key recommendation: >Application

Re: [Int-area] Review of draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains

> Date: Wednesday 28 March 2018 at 17:51 To: Eric Vyncke <evyn...@cisco.com> Cc: int-area <int-area@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Review of draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains On Mar 28, 2018, at 10:53 AM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyn...@cisco.com<mailto:evyn...@cisco.com

Re: [Int-area] Review of draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains

Ted Thank you very much for this prompt and detailed reply. While the authors will review your comments and come back to the list, I want to stress that the HTTPS/JSON is really at the core of our proposal in order to add network information to the application (notably for CAPPORT WG or

[Int-area] Main change in draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains-03: connection sharing

The authors of this draft would like to have some discussions even before the INTAREA WG meeting in two weeks. Especially on the major change about connection sharing (tethering) where the authors spent several hours on it. See all differences in:

Re: [Int-area] Main change in draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains-03: connection sharing

Ted Thank you for your FYI The text is indeed ambiguous. Your question makes its ambiguity clear. It should read as “... depend on whether the host wants to share its connectivity only with PvD-aware hosts.” Does it sound better? -éric From: Ted Lemon Date: Wednesday, 24 October 2018 at

Re: [Int-area] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains-04

Philip, Thank you again for the time spent on reviewing our draft. After some discussion with the authors, please see below our comments, look for EV>. Also, expect a next revision in the coming days taking in to account a couple of your comments. Regards -éric for the authors On

[Int-area] Existing use of IP protocol 114 (any 0-hop protocol)

The authors of https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-zhu-intarea-gma-03.txt would like to use IP protocol 114 as it is described as “Any 0-hop protocol” on the IANA page[1]. Alas, on the IANA page, there is no reference to this “Any 0-hop protocol”. Obviously, we all understand that this must be a

Re: [Int-area] Existing use of IP protocol 114 (any 0-hop protocol)

Thank you all for your unicast, multicast replies and the educated pieces of information sent. I even went in the Internet history museum ;-) Based on the provided information, I will recommend to the draft-zhu-intarea-gma authors: 1. As it is an informational independent stream with little

Re: [Int-area] [ih] Fwd: Existing use of IP protocol 114 (any 0-hop protocol)

Thank you John for your 'archeology' work about this protocol number. I appreciate your time and effort. About the draft itself, I will let the authors reply (as they should be part of int-area@) but my understanding is that the "multi-access gateway" is on the same link (3G or wifi) as the

Re: [Int-area] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hello Adam, Replying with my co-author's hat. First thank you for the review and the catch (I feel a little ashamed of not spotting it before!). As noted by you and Tommy, sections 4.4 and 7 actually protect the real PvD additional information server based on the source IP address of the

Re: [Int-area] FYI/Feedback for draft-bryant-arch-fwd-layer-ps-00

Hello Toerless, It seems related to intarea indeed (by reading the abstract) but possibly wider as well. Did you consider DISPATCH (yesterday alas...) ? May I also suggest to run a 2nd call as tomorrow is really short notice? -éric -Original Message- From: Int-area on behalf of

[Int-area] AD review of draft-ietf-intarea-gue

Tom, Lucy, Osama, As you probably know by now, I have become the responsible AD for this document for a couple of months (since I replaced Suresh who is in cc). As usual, I do an AD review before launching the IETF Last Call step. So, here are my comments. The first one is really about what

[Int-area] Please discuss OUTSIDE of IETF mailing list (was Re: [v6ops] Still need to know what has changed.... Re: IPv10 draft)

Dear all, I hope that I was clear when I wrote[1] on the i...@ietf.org mailing list that people wanting to discuss the merits and the issues of Khaled Omar's proposal should contact him unicast and/or on a different mailing list than i...@ietf.org, v6...@ietf.org, inta...@ietf.org. Let's stay

Re: [Int-area] Evaluate impact of MAC address randomization to IP applications

In another century, DECnet phase 4 was also changing the MAC address (and if not mistaken IBM SNA also) but flipping the universal/local bit of the MAC address -éric From: Int-area on behalf of Stewart Bryant Date: Wednesday, 23 September 2020 at 12:38 To: Andy Smith Cc:

[Int-area] Please stay respectful .... Re: IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10)

Sorry to be forced to patronize WG members, but, those two email messages are really close to be aggressive... I.e., they do not add any value to the discussion. -éric PS : Ted, we all know that you are both a coder and a RFC author  From: Int-area on behalf of Khaled Omar Date: Thursday,

[Int-area] Still need to know what has changed.... Re: IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10)

life. -Original Message- From: Int-area on behalf of "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" Date: Thursday, 17 September 2020 at 15:46 To: Khaled Omar , int-area , "intarea-cha...@ietf.org" Cc: Ron Bonica Subject: [Int-area] IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meet

Re: [Int-area] Still need to know what has changed.... Re: IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10)

Khaled, I fully support the intarea Working Group chairs' decision as the responsible AD for this WG. As long as you do not execute the work of updating your draft (and I gave you last week the bare minimum things to do) it will not get a slot in any IETF WG. Its content has not really

[Int-area] IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10)

Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 3:12 PM To: 'Eric Vyncke (evyncke)' ; int-area ; intarea-cha...@ietf.org Cc: Ron Bonica ; Fred Baker Subject: RE: [Int-area] FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10 Hi Eric, The IPv10 I-D was presented once a

Re: [Int-area] FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10

Khaled, As the responsible AD for the intarea WG, I wonder why you are forwarding a V6OPS request to intarea ? Your draft has been already presented at intarea a couple of times and (I may be wrong) I do not see a major difference with previous drafts. -éric -Original Message- From:

Re: [Int-area] IPv10 draft

los Zuniga Subject: RE: [Int-area] IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10) Dear Eric, The attached version addresses all your comments. Best Regards, Khaled Omar -Original Message- From: Eric Vyncke (evyn

Re: [Int-area] IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10)

Dear all, I have hard time to find new and interesting technical arguments in this email thread; and even if I can appreciate the mood and passion of participants in the discussion, I would really prefer to stick to technical/business arguments. Dear Khaled, looking at the diff between the

Re: [Int-area] IPv10 I-D Destiny.

With my INT Area Director hat on: Thank you Joe for providing the pointer to the previous email exchange. Khaled, all efforts to improve the Internet are always welcome, but, as Joe, I would like to understand what has changed since 2017 ? IPv6, that solves the IPv4 issues, is being more and

[Int-area] Moving draft-thubert-lpwan-schc-over-ppp to intarea from LPWAN to INTAREA

For info: SHCH == Static Context Header Compression (RFC 8724) is a header compression for low power wide area network (Sigfox, LoraWan, ...) and is worked on by the LPWAN WG. The header compression could also be applied over PPP and work has already started on this idea: see

Re: [Int-area] Call for SAAG comments on draft-olteanu-intarea-socks-6

Adding the SOCKSv5 authors in the loop as well as the concluded IETF AFT WG (Authenticated Firewall Traversal) As some recipients were authors of RFC 1928, your feedback will be welcome Regards -éric From: Int-area on behalf of Juan Carlos Zuniga Date: Wednesday, 25 November 2020 at 04:35

[Int-area] Suggestion to move draft-olteanu-intarea-socks as Independent Submissions

Vladimir, Dragos, While there was some interest in adopting the SOCKv6 document as an INT-AREA WG document, the lukewarm interest and lack of reviewer volunteers [1] are preventing the actual adoption of this document as a WG document (my AD decision in agreement with the chairs). After

Re: [Int-area] Suggestion to move draft-olteanu-intarea-socks as Independent Submissions

to have but it is good to mention here. Regards, Behcet On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 7:55 AM Eric Vyncke (evyncke) mailto:40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: Vladimir, Dragos, While there was some interest in adopting the SOCKv6 document as an INT-AREA WG document, the lukewarm interest and l

Re: [Int-area] Suggestion to move draft-olteanu-intarea-socks as Independent Submissions

for the existence of the Independent Submissions Stream is to provide a way to publish relevant material as an RFC when the IETF is unable or unwilling to do so. Best, Adrian From: Int-area On Behalf Of Eric Vyncke (evyncke) Sent: 15 January 2021 15:52 To: sarik...@ieee.org Cc: int-area@ietf.org;

Re: [Int-area] [Softwires] Errata on RFC 6333, "Dual-Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4 Exhaustion"

2473] Section 7.2<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2473#section-7.2>. Cheers, Med De : Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de ianfar...@gmx.com Envoyé : lundi 10 mai 2021 16:40 À : Eric Vyncke (evyncke) Cc : softwi...@ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org Objet : R

[Int-area] Errata on RFC 6333, "Dual-Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4 Exhaustion"

Dear ex-softwires WG, dear int-area WG, Mikael Abrahamsson filed an erratum https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5847 in August 2019 (after the softwires WG closure) and, as the past responsible AD for softwires, I would like to fix this erratum but as Mikael I have no idea about the

Re: [Int-area] Suggestion to move draft-olteanu-intarea-socks as Independent Submissions

s. Thanks, Vlad On 1/15/21 5:52 PM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: Indeed, but as the current intended status is experimental ;-) it should not be a problem -éric From: Behcet Sarikaya <mailto:sarikaya2...@gmail.com> Reply-To: "sarik...@ieee.org"<mailto:sarik...@ieee.org>

Re: [Int-area] AD review of draft-ietf-intarea-gue

rbert" wrote: On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 1:12 AM Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: > > Tom, Lucy, Osama, > > One year and one day after my AD review, I must notice that the document is in the same state even after a couple of reminders. > > Most probab

Re: [Int-area] AD review of draft-ietf-intarea-gue

Tom, Lucy, Osama,   One year and one day after my AD review, I must notice that the document is in the same state even after a couple of reminders.    Most probably a lack of energy/interest to advance this document when other UDP encapsulation protocols have been published and vastly

Re: [Int-area] IP parcels

Fred, Without any hat, I share Joe's concerns about the use of HbH (but I guess that those IP parcels are intended to be used on a set of collaborative nodes for some definitions of 'limited domains') and I will had another one for all devices on the path wanting to do something (from ACL to

Re: [Int-area] Introducing IPv4 Unicast Extensions with new draft-schoen-intarea-lowest-address

Greg, With my AD hat on, you are correct: intarea WG is currently the only suitable WG for discussion as its charter includes: The Internet Area Working Group (INTAREA WG) acts primarily as a forum for discussing far-ranging topics that affect the entire area. Such topics include,

[Int-area] Some INT area-related sessions this week

In case some agenda items in other WG did not catch your attention: - DISPATCH/ARTAREA: “IPv6 Zone Identifiers in URIs (RFC6874bis) » (also in 6MAN) - MASQUE: two “connect IP” proposals - Tuesday session of Applied Network Research Workshop on “Monitoring Internet Traffic” Hope this helps and I

[Int-area] AD review of draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis-08

Dear authors, dear shepherd, dear WG, As the Int-area WG chairs have requested the publication of this IETF draft, I have done my usual AD review of it. Before processing with the publication (i.e., the IETF Last Call), I am requesting a reply or an action on all the points below. Special

Re: [Int-area] AD review of draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis-08

mp; ADs. Regards -éric PS: Please note that I will be on holidays from this WE for 10 days. On 13/09/2023, 06:54, "Donald Eastlake" mailto:d3e...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Eric, Thanks for the review. See responses below. On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 8:43 AM Eric Vyncke (evyncke) m

[Int-area] The CBOR section of draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis...

Dear authors, CBOR/INTAREA WGs, fellow ADs, When doing my AD review of draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis, I find the section 2.4 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis#section-2.4 ) "CBOR tags" out of the scope of this IETF draft, which is more about the use of IEEE

[Int-area] Internet AD Office Hours

Erik Kline and I are having an open “Internet AD office hours” on Monday 25th 12:15-13:15 local time in Salon 2 during the IETF-114. Feel free to come with *ANY* question / suggestion /idea about the Internet area (and not only about the int-area WG), this could range from how to create a WG

Re: [Int-area] Call for Agenda Items @IETF115

Hello Fred, The chairs and I, as the responsible AD for the intarea WG, just had a preparation call for the IETF -155 meeting including the agenda. About the topic of IP parcel: it has been presented multiple times and I have not seen a large interest from the intarea WG participants and even

Re: [Int-area] Call for Adoption - IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol and Documentation Usage for IEEE 802 Parameters draft

Without any hat, strong support to adopt this simple and useful draft -éric From: Int-area on behalf of "Juan Carlos Zuniga (juzuniga)" Date: Wednesday, 31 August 2022 at 19:42 To: "int-area@ietf.org" , Wassim Haddad Subject: [Int-area] Call for Adoption - IANA Considerations and IETF

Re: [Int-area] Resubmit - requesting WG Adoption draft-moskowitz-intarea-schc-ip-protocol-number

Without any hat, this proposal does not look like an extension header (i.e., it does not extend the semantic of the IP packet, it 'just' compress it) and looks more like a tunnel/transport header to me. All in all, it requires an IP protocol number -éric On 08/09/2022, 00:25, "Int-area on

Re: [Int-area] Can you review draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs as it is about tunnels

ffic Obfuscation at Line Rate." NDSS Symposium 2022. 2022. From: Int-area On Behalf Of Eric Vyncke (evyncke) Sent: mercredi 10 août 2022 17:52 To: Internet Area ; int-...@ietf.org Cc: ip...@ietf.org Subject: [Int-area] Can you review draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs as it is about tunnels Dear inta

Re: [Int-area] Resubmit - requesting WG Adoption draft-moskowitz-intarea-schc-ip-protocol-number

Or wg just adopts -00 and I submit that as wg ver? Bob On 9/9/22 11:34, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: > Without any hat, this proposal does not look like an extension header (i.e., it does not extend the semantic of the IP packet, it 'just' compress it) and looks more

[Int-area] Can you review draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs as it is about tunnels

Dear intarea/int-dir, I have a request for you about https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs/ While the draft name looks like it is about IPsec, it appears to me as an “aggregation and fragmentation” tunneling mechanism [1], i.e., it uses the ESP Next-header field (an IP

Re: [Int-area] [IPsec] Can you review draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs as it is about tunnels ?

or, and we would *not* benefit from delaying this work, or making the encapsulation more generic. Thanks, Chris. "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" writes: > Dear intarea/int-dir, > > > > I have a request for you about https://datatracker.ietf.org/

Re: [Int-area] Next steps for draft-ietf-intarea-schc-ip-protocol-number-00

Does it need to be broken out into a small companion draft the way SCHC did it? Fred From: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2022 9:28 AM To: Templin (US), Fred L ; Juan Carlos Zuniga (juzuniga) ; int-area@ietf.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Int-area] Next steps for draft-ietf-intarea-s

Re: [Int-area] Next steps for draft-ietf-intarea-schc-ip-protocol-number-00

Fred, IANA has enough code points for SCHC over IP/Ethernet/UDP and for OMNI (NDP code point if I remember correctly). I.e., this not one or the other. And SCHC early allocation (if any) won't block/prevent any other allocations. Moreover, per RFC 7120 section 2 point d) d. The Working

Re: [Int-area] Next steps for draft-ietf-intarea-schc-ip-protocol-number-00

d look over Section 25 of the OMNI draft and make assignments for the protocol numbers and reservations there. Permanent reservations would be preferred, but RFC7120-style temporary is acceptable if that is all that can be done for the time being. Is that something that can be done? Thank you, Fred F

Re: [Int-area] Dynamic FQDN resolution via ARP.

Dear Salim, It is always nice to have new ideas. The IETF process [1] is to discuss ideas written as IETF drafts (see https://authors.ietf.org/ for assistance on format and tools). Would you mind presenting your idea in the IETF draft format ? Please also note the email address of the

[Int-area] New members of the Internet directorate

After reviewing the list of volunteers for the Internet directorate, after consultations with the 3 int-dir chairs, we have selected several new Internet directorate members: * Dirk von Hugo * Antoine Fressancourt * Haoyu Song * Joe Touch * Benson Muite * Salim-Amine Bou

[Int-area] Internet ADs Office hour

If you want to discuss or talk about an existing or potential IETF draft related to the Internet area, then feel free to join Erik and I during the INT ADs office hour on Tuesday 14:30-15:30 in room G415. First come, first served ;-) Of course, you may also prefer to come and chat with use

[Int-area] FW: Intarea WG agenda

For information to the CATS WG as the INTAREA WG agenda includes individual drafts about "service aware network" (SAN). At first sight, those SAN drafts look pretty close to the CATS charter. So, feel free to join us in INTAREA WG meeting (or on the mailing list). Regards -éric From:

[Int-area] SAN presentation at Re: Intarea WG agenda

Dear SAN authors, After quickly browsing through the different SAN IETF drafts, may I suggest being clear in your intarea presentation on Tuesday about: - how the SAN use cases are different from the use cases of the CATS ([1] aka CAN) drafts ? - how the SAN use of SIL in the network differs

[Int-area] Looking for reviewer volunteers for the internet directorate

Dear all, The Internet directorate [1] mission is mainly to review IETF drafts from all the IETF Working Groups even outside of the INT area from an IP-layer and Internet points of view. The reviewers are selected by the current INT Area Directors and our goal is to refresh this list of

[Int-area] FW: SAN presentation at Intarea WG agenda

软件大道50号中兴通讯2号楼 R Building, ZTE Corporation Software Road No.50, Yuhua District, Nanjing, P..R.China, 210012 M: +86 13770311052 E: huang.guangp...@zte.com.cn www.zte.com.cn<http://www.zte.com.cn/> Original From: Int-area on behalf of "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" Date: Monday, 27 March 2023

Re: [Int-area] New Draft - ICMPv6 Loopback

Without any hat, I agree with Bob. This I-D should eventually go to 6MAN WG though (with my AD hat) -éric On 06/06/2023, 08:34, "Int-area on behalf of Bob Hinden" mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of bob.hin...@gmail.com > wrote: Tal, I did a quick

Re: [Int-area] draft-pauly-intarea-proxy-config-pvd-00

It does indeed seem cleaner ;-) From: Int-area on behalf of Tommy Pauly Date: Thursday, 29 June 2023 at 17:32 To: Erik Kline Cc: MASQUE , "int-area@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Int-area] draft-pauly-intarea-proxy-config-pvd-00 Yes, it is an interesting outcome — but I think that in the same was

[Int-area] Looking for designated expert for Hierarchical HIT prefixes

Dear all, The IANA has asked me to find RFC 8126 designated experts for the Hierarchical HIT (HHIT) Prefixes registry [1] created by RFC 9374. This registry currently contains a single entry 2001:30::/28 that is used by the DRIP (Drone Remote ID Protocol) but other entries could also be added

Re: [Int-area] "Identification Extension for the Internet Protocol" question

Fred, Without any hat, I agree with Tom: any new protocol should be able to work with legacy (== current) devices including routers on the path. Tom, rather than HbH (that would be processed by every router on the path and whose fate is not too positive), I would rather suggest Dest Options as

[Int-area] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9542 (7952)

Donald and Joe, I will let you decide whether the erratum is correct. -éric From: RFC Errata System Date: Thursday, 23 May 2024 at 11:33 To: d3e...@gmail.com , jab...@strandkip.nl , liyiz...@huawei.com , ek.i...@gmail.com , Eric Vyncke (evyncke) , Juan Carlos Zuniga (juzuniga) , wassim.had

[Int-area] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9542 (7952)

Thank you, Donald, it seems logical indeed. I will mark it as “hold for doc update” Regards, -éric From: Donald Eastlake Date: Friday, 24 May 2024 at 04:19 To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) Cc: RFC Errata System , jab...@strandkip.nl , liyiz...@huawei.com , ek.i...@gmail.com , Juan Carlos Zuniga