RE: [Gen-art] Re: gen-art review of draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-09.txt
I concur with the uselessness of the bits. However, I've heard some implementers who where talking about implementing extra code/logic to try to match what they thought the semantic of those bits was/should be/should have been... This is adding complexity, brittleness and opening doors to all kind of errors such as the ones Jim Calson pointed at. So, maybe we should write a document: "M & O bits considered useless" and close the topic. - Alain. > -Original Message- > From: Ralph Droms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 1:19 PM > To: Brian E Carpenter; Thomas Narten > Cc: Brian Haberman; Bob Hinden; William Allen Simpson; General Area > Review Team; Erik Nordmark; ipv6@ietf.org; Soliman,Hesham > Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Re: gen-art review of > draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-09.txt > > Yeah. I have to agree with James and Brian: in retrospect, the M/O > bits are useless and further discussion at this point is even more > useless. > > - Ralph ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
Re: [Gen-art] Re: gen-art review of draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-09.txt
Yeah. I have to agree with James and Brian: in retrospect, the M/O bits are useless and further discussion at this point is even more useless. - Ralph On 11/29/06 4:58 AM, "Brian E Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The M&O bits were >> defined long before we had DHCPv6 in place. > > And they were discussed to death in the WG before the draft reached > WG consensus. I'm not inclined to reopen that discussion. > > (Somebody added ietf@ietf.org to this thread. I have removed it.) > > Brian ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
[Gen-art] Re: review of draft-ietf-rohc-rfc3095bis-framework-03.txt
As per Magnus request, the draft has been updated. See inline what has been changed. BR, /L-E -First comment is an exception, it is technical: 4.4 page 11 doesn't metion that ROHC has the capability to work without a feedback channel, i.e., on simplex/one-way links. As it is both an unique and important in some cases capability IMHO it should be mentioned somewhere... This should be clear from other places in the draft, and does not really fit well here where only the ROHC channel is discussed. There is also a reference here to the terminology and channel mapping RCF, where more material on how to map ROHC on top of different channel scenarios can be found. -The second exception is the TCP profile in 6 page 32 which is not yet an RFC, so the RFC editor could have to wait for it and update the document (it is not an issue but RFC editor should be warned). This is an Informational reference, so it is not a show-stopper in any way. By the way, the TCP profile was just submitted to the AD. =) -There are many cases of "i.e." and "e.g." not folloed by a comma, 2.2 page 5 (2), 3.1 page 7, 4.4 pagee 11 (3), 12 (4), 4.6 page 13, 5 page 13, 5.2.5 page 235.3.1.4 page 26, 6 page 30. This is not an error! -In 2.1 page 4 (NACK): Acknowledgement -> Acknowledgment -In 3.2 page 7: acknowledgements -> acknowledgments -In 5.2.4.1 last line of page 21: acknowledgement -> acknowledgment. Corrected, now the document should be consistent in this regard. -In 4.3 page 10: "extendable" is not a valid English word? Actually it is! -In 4.3 page 10, "feeback from implementers have also" -> has? Corrected! -In 4.4 page 11 there are two "make it possible" which IMHO should be "make possible". Not changed, current text seems correct to us! -In 4.4 at the top of page 12: their definition assume -> definitions. There is one common definition in this regard. -> No change. -In 4.5 page 12: and it then -> and then. Agree, changed! -In 5.1.1 page 14: one another need not even have CID spaces -> to have CID space This became "...do not even need to have CID space..." -In 6 page 30: fields, or ... types, updates -> update (without the comma?) Agree, changed (but with the comma). ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
Re: [Gen-art] Re: gen-art review of draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-09.txt
The M&O bits were defined long before we had DHCPv6 in place. And they were discussed to death in the WG before the draft reached WG consensus. I'm not inclined to reopen that discussion. (Somebody added ietf@ietf.org to this thread. I have removed it.) Brian ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
