Hi.
Having done a consistency check across all the ICMP updates, I believe
that the IANA considerations of this draft need an overhaul.
In particular:
- the master policies for types are (or will be) defined in the RFC that
comes from draft-ipngwg-icmp-v3 instead of RFC2780.
- this document
All done, except:
define the policy for the Neighbour Discovery options (since
this hasn't
previously been properly defined).
= Did you mean the policy of allocating new option numbers?
- it should probably explicitly define the ICMP types and ND options
which are being continued
Soliman, Hesham wrote:
All done, except:
define the policy for the Neighbour Discovery options (since
this hasn't
previously been properly defined).
= Did you mean the policy of allocating new option numbers?
Yes. I don't think this is covered elsewhere and there was no explicit
= I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. What do you
mean by don't have an explicit registration in RFC2461.?
The IANA considerations section in RFC2461 was very skimpy
and didn't
explicitly say what new ICMPv6 message types were being
added or what
the set of ND
