Re-, Yes, you are right. But, this was fixed in the updated version I shared (https://github.com/boucadair/draft-hop-limit/blob/master/draft-ietf-core-hop-limit-06.txt): the structure of the table in the IANA section is aligned with the one in the IANA registry. The OLD table was moved into the core text. Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Scott O. Bradner [mailto:sob@xxxxxxxxx] > Envoyé : vendredi 27 septembre 2019 13:00 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN > Cc : ops-dir@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-core-hop-limit.all@xxxxxxxx; > ietf@xxxxxxxx; core@xxxxxxxx > Objet : Re: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-core-hop-limit-05 > > > > > On Sep 27, 2019, at 4:30 AM, mohamed.boucadair@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > > >> (that > >> the IANA registry does not include the option categories) and would > >> suggest > >> that section 6.2 specifically refer back to section 5.10 of RFC 7252 > and > >> say > >> that it is an extension of the table in the RFC. > > > > [Med] No need to mention this is an "extension" of the table in 7252. > The IANA registry is used to maintain the updated table. > > not quite the case - the IANA maintains a list of options - the table > includes additional information not maintained by the IANA > (but maybe should be) > > Scott
