Hi Acee, On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 8:53 PM Acee Lindem <acee.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Donald, > > See some discussion inline regarding the IANA Considerations, RFC > 7042, and RFC 7042BIS. > > > On Dec 12, 2023, at 6:21 PM, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > ... > > > > Minor Issues: > > ------------- > > > > ... > > > > Section 11 IANA Considerations: This needs to direct IANA to update > > references to RFC 5798. Suggest adding wording like: "IANA is > > requested to update all IANA Registry references to [RFC5798] to be > > references to [this document]." (Alternatively, instead of “all IANA > > Registries” it could list the protocol number, 48-bit MAC address > > block, IPv4 multicast address local network control block, and IPv6 > > link-local scope multicast addresses registries.) > > I don’t mind adding this at the start but since this document > obsoletes RFC 5798, I believe it should still contain all the IANA > references in the “IANA Considerations”. Sure, I said nothing about removing anything in Section 11. I just suggested one sentence to be added where that sentence included either the words "all IANA Registries" or a more specific list of the relevant registries. > > Nits: > > ----- > > > >... > > > > Section 1.1, Point 2: I believe it is good practice to include the > > Errata fixed by a revision in the Informational References. As an > > example, RFC 7176 fixes Errata 2869 in RFC 6326 which it obsoletes and > > thus the Informational References for RFC 7176 include the following: > > [Err2869] RFC Errata, Errata ID 2869, RFC 6326, > > <http://www.rfc-editor.org> > > I don’t agree that listing the Errata on an obsoleted draft is a > good practice. I’m not going to do this. Then we diagree. The Errata are a reference for the statement in rfc5798bis that Errata are fixed and I would not suggest the reference if there were not such a statement in the document. But it's not that important. > > ... > > > > Section 8.3.1 Potential Forwarding Loop: There is a word missing in > > the final one-sentence paragraph. Suggest "…Routers to these > > forwarding…" -> "…Routers avoid to these forwarding…". I put the missing word in the wrong place above, It should have been "…Routers to avoid these forwarding…" > > Section 11 IANA Considerations: The reference to [RFC7042] should be > > replaced by a reference to the rfc7042bis draft. > > RFC 7042 is a normative reference currently. If I were to update the > reference, I’d want to make it informative as not to gate this draft > just based on an IANA registry name update. I believe it was you who > suggested adding this reference in the first place. Can you suggest > updated text if I update the reference? I don't see why any gating should occur since rfc7042bis seems to be ahead of rfc5798bis in the process. I suggest you just put in a reference to [RFC7042] in Section 7.3 where I had suggested a reference to rfc7042bis and ignore my suggestion above re Section 11. If I am correct, as rfc5798bis proceeds through the process, at AUTH-48 or before, IANA or some AD will point out to you that RFC 7042 has been / is being obsoleted and ask about updating the reference to be to the RFC-to-be that the rfc7042bis draft turns into. If this happens, I request that you accept this change. > Thanks, > Acee Thanks, Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
