Hi Med,
I think this is pretty much good to go except for some funny line wrapping and
indentation. It is probably worth fixing that in a -05 and then I'll kick off
IETF LC.
I.e.
Note also that [TCP-FLAGS] indexes the bit offset from the
most-significant
bit of octet 12 t
Hi Rob,
Thanks for the follow up.
Looks good to me. This is now fixed in draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update-04
which is available online.
Thanks.
Cheers,
Med
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Rob Wilton (rwilton)
> Envoyé : jeudi 12 octobre 2023 12:53
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET ;
>
Hi Med,
I still think that there needs to be a more explicit statement. E.g., the
description of the tcpControlBits talks about setting it to one if the bit is
set, and then references the "TCP Header Flags". So I think that you should
add something like the following:
"Note, the TCP-FLAGs re
Hi Rob,
Thanks for the review.
I agree having an example is useful to avoid that bit offset is interpreted as
bit value.
We do having the following in the introduction to basically say that we are
echoing what is in RFC9293 about the meaning of offet:
Also, Section 6 of [RFC9293] intro
Hi Med, WG,
Here is my AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update-03.
Moderate level comments:
(1) p 3, sec 3. The tcpControlBits Information Element
If exported as a single octet with reduced-size encoding, this
Information Element covers the low-order octet of this field
