For everyone's context, this is a topic on which the IETF as a whole and
the IESG do not have anything like rough consensus. Some folks think
this sort of change should be an "updates", and other folks argue that
the point of a registry is that we do not need to "update" the base
document.
There are many valid arguments on both sides.
Yours,
Joel
On 10/23/18 3:37 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Hi all,
In a discussion among the authors of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub, we
discussed whether an "Update RFC6833bis" header is needed to be added to
the draft.
The rationale is the-bis document states, for example, the following:
R: This reserved bit MUST be set to 0 on transmit and MUST be ignored
on receipt.
So, obviously this behavior is to be updated each time a meaning is
associated with an unassigned/reserved bit, otherwise an extension will
be broken if that part of the –bis spec is not touched on.
An update header is therefore more than appropriate….nevertheless, it
seems that some old RFCs didn’t follow this approach (e.g., RFC8061).
The question we have for the WG is which option do we need to follow:
update or no update?
FWIW, a similar action is needed for other documents, e.g.,
draft-ietf-lisp-mn.
Thank you.
Cheers,
Med
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
