OK > On Sep 27, 2019, at 7:55 AM, <mohamed.boucadair@xxxxxxxxxx> <mohamed.boucadair@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 >
