I agree with you Fernando, thanks, ines On Mar 6, 2018 15:11, "Fernando Gont" <fg...@si6networks.com> wrote:
On 03/06/2018 05:47 AM, Ines Robles wrote: > Hi Fer, > > > On 06.03.2018 10:36, Fernando Gont wrote: >> [RFCXXXX] represents this document. >> >> Hex Value Binary Value >> act chg rest Description Reference >> --------- --- --- ------- ----------------- ---------- >> 0x23 00 1 00011 RPL Option [RFCXXXX] >> 0x63 01 1 00011 RPL Option(DEPRECATED) [RFC6553][RFCXXXX] >> >> >> SO, while you don't say that elsewhere, it would seem to me that you >> *are* deprecating it? > Ah Ok, I understand, so yes, we deprecated the value of 0x63, but not > the option, so what about to say: > > Something like: " > > This option was originally specified in [RFC6553 < https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6553>]. [I-D.ietf-roll-useofrplinfo > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh- filtering-05#ref-I-D.ietf-roll-useofrplinfo>] updates the registration made in [RFC6553 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6553>] Destination > Options and Hop-by-Hop Options registry from 0x63 to 0x23." > > or > > " This option was originally specified in [RFC6553 < https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6553>]. The value of 0x63 has been > deprecated by [I-D.ietf-roll-useofrplinfo > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh- filtering-05#ref-I-D.ietf-roll-useofrplinfo>], which proposes a new value (0x23) for the RPL Option." I like this second option. But will say "specifies" (rather than "proposes"), since by the time this doc is published, I-D.ietf-roll-useofrplinfo whould have been published already. Thoughts? Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
_______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list OPSEC@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
