Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-6lo-prefix-registration-11: Discuss
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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-prefix-registration/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I share the concerns of Ketan and Mohamed regarding the normative use of an individual internet draft that has no IETF consensus. It would be better if only RFCs that are "updated" (as opposed to "extended") are given the Update: flag The Update: tag also lists more RFCs than mentioned in the Abstract, so it seems something is still missing? I am not a topic expert on this, so I hope the next two questions make sense. But: In Figure 4, why is the F bit taken from the next 4 bytes, while there is still room in the Reserved space before that? In Figure 5, what was taken up by the space of the F bit before this? It seems unlikely there was only a single unused bit there? _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
