On Fri, Sep 26, 2025 at 6:07 AM Juliusz Chroboczek <[email protected]> wrote:
> From an editorial point of view, though, the current description aims to > be clear and simple (based on the experience from a number of talks I gave > about RFC 9229), and I'm not too keen on complicating it with > considerations about point-to-point links. > > Do you feel strongly about this, or can you live with the current text? > I don't feel very strongly, but I don't think it's good to have statements that are partially incorrect in an RFC (especially if this becomes standards track). I do get that this is the common case, but text like this: ==== When a packet is routed according to a given routing table entry, the forwarding plane uses a neighbor discovery protocol (the Neighbor Discovery protocol (ND) [RFC4861] in the case of IPv6, the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) [RFC0826] in the case of IPv4) to map the next-hop address to a link-layer address (a "MAC address"), which is then used to construct the link-layer frames that encapsulate forwarded packets. ==== is incorrect on P2P or sonet, incorrect on non-Ethernet links that use other link-layer address types, incorrect on mesh networks, and so on. Maybe just tweak the text to use words like "typically", "commonly" and "e.g."? Even if the WG doesn't pick up on it, the IESG and IETF LC might result in such a comment too. So you might as well fix it.
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
