Dear Ketan

I can publish further revisions, no problem. But I believe that this is a
better base considering the issues raised.
Please see: Diff: draft-ietf-6lo-prefix-registration-12.txt -
draft-ietf-6lo-prefix-registration-13.txt
<https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-6lo-prefix-registration-12&url2=draft-ietf-6lo-prefix-registration-13&difftype=--html>

all the best;

Pascal

Le ven. 6 juin 2025 à 12:08, Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> a
écrit :

> Hi Pascal,
>
> Thanks for sharing that change proposal. I confirm that it addresses my
> concerns and I would clear my DISCUSS position once it is posted.
>
> I would suggest waiting for confirmation from other ADs before you post
> though, to make sure there is no back/forth :-)
>
> Thanks,
> Ketan
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2025 at 2:33 PM Pascal Thubert <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Ketan and all
>>
>> I proposed to diff that removed the Extends and Amends thingy as Github
>> · pthubert/6lo-prefix-registration@dde1a90
>> <https://github.com/pthubert/6lo-prefix-registration/commit/dde1a903729546131610c7e18a838b2a3460e4e3>.
>> The change also modifies the way RFC 4861 si used (the target address is
>> notw a full address from the registered prefix) so that RFC 4861 is not
>> updated. Could you please have a look and let me know if that fixes your
>> issues?
>>
>> all the best
>>
>> Pascal
>>
>> Le jeu. 5 juin 2025 à 18:55, Ketan Talaulikar via Datatracker <
>> [email protected]> a écrit :
>>
>>> Ketan Talaulikar has entered the following ballot position for
>>> draft-ietf-6lo-prefix-registration-12: 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:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Thanks to the author and the WG for this very useful extension for Prefix
>>> Discovery in 6LoWPAN.
>>>
>>> I am updating my DISCUSS post the telechat in two ways: (a) removed my
>>> previous
>>> question for clarification of whether this extension is narrowly scoping
>>> to
>>> 6LoWPAN (and related scenarios) alone or generically for all of IPv6 ND
>>> deployments, and (b) clarified my position on the other discuss (see
>>> below).
>>>
>>> This document is setting the "update" RFC metadata on 7 RFCs 4861 (base
>>> IPv6
>>> ND), 6550 (RPL), 6553, 8505 (6LoWPAN ND which btw does not update 4861),
>>> 8928,
>>> 8929 , 9010.
>>>
>>> For the record, none of the RFCs from 6Lo (and related space/WGs)
>>> updated base
>>> ND RFC 4861 until very recently RFC9685 did that by "updating" a whole
>>> host of
>>> RFCs just like this document is trying to do.
>>>
>>> Now this draft references draft-kuehlewind-update-tag and uses its
>>> terminology
>>> of ammend/extend (but curiously not "also see"). I have no issue with
>>> the use
>>> or referencing on this term in the body of the text. My query is whether
>>> extending those terms from draft-kuehlewind to reflect on the existing
>>> "updates" RFC metadata (which is not what draft-kuehlewind proposes) is
>>> correct. i.e., is this a normal protocol extension using available bits,
>>> fields, TLVs OR is it a change (or bugfix) of the base specification
>>> itself.
>>>
>>> I do also have doubts on the claim that it amends RFC4861 (I believe it
>>> amends
>>> RFC8505 instead).
>>>
>>> I could be wrong and request the INT ADs to correct me.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Pascal
>>
>

-- 
Pascal
_______________________________________________
6lo mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to